Gay Adoption?

Trudiha

I'm not a great fan of adoption, I'd far rather see birth parents given all of the support needed to raise their own child but I'm aware that it isn't always possible and that it can be a fantastic outcome for both folks unable to have birth children of their own and the adopted child.

Gay people can adopt but only as single parents and not as couples and while I'm sure that we all know of lone parents doing a fantastic job, is it ideal to deliberately give a child only one legal parent when their are two available?

Kylo Ren

This should be good.

donvito99

Feckin greeks...

orestes

Why do people think that the ability to conceive a child is the same thing as the ability to be a good parent?

o1s1n

Trudiha wrote: »

Gay people can adopt but only as single parents and not as couples and while I'm sure that we all know of lone parents doing a fantastic job, is it ideal to deliberately give a child only one legal parent when their are two available?

So your issue with gay people adopting isn't that they're gay, it's because of a technicality that they can only do so by being a single parent?

Or are you using this as a nice excuse to be against gay adoption and not sound like a bigot?

Seachmall

The argument that a child needs a male and female parent is clearly undermined by single parent families. And the idea that a heterosexual couple is preferential over a homosexual one is undermined by studies done on the topic.

Nodin

o1s1n wrote: »

So your issue with gay people adopting isn't that they're gay, it's because of a technicality that they can only do so by being a single parent?

Or are you using this as a nice excuse to be against gay adoption and not sound like a bigot?

I think you're taking him up wrong.

VinLieger

Nodin wrote: »

I think you're taking him up wrong.

Im not sure actually, i think theres 2 ways of reading it and i havent a clue which way the OP is actually leaning

Hammer Archer

Eagerly awaiting the first poster who is against it because the child may be bullied.

Trudiha

I was doing my best not to ask a leading question and I'm a her.

o1s1n

Nodin wrote: »

I think you're taking him up wrong.

Well I did give an 'either' 'or' to try and confirm which angle he's coming at

Madam_X

How the hell can "Trudiha" seem like a he?

Nodin wrote: »

I think you're taking him up wrong.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vUFXY63GmF8/TZsMJ9y6XQI/AAAAAAAAAJk/e9GQktZIyJY/s1600/kenneth+williams.jpg

IceFjoem

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Eagerly awaiting the first poster who is against it because the child may be bullied.

I am against it as the child may be bullied.

BOOM!!!

Nodin

Trudiha wrote: »

I was doing my best not to ask a leading question and I'm a her.

Rule 30 of teh internet,, I'm afraid.

Hardonraging

Madam_X wrote: »

How the hell can "Trudiha" seem like a he?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vUFXY63GmF8/TZsMJ9y6XQI/AAAAAAAAAJk/e9GQktZIyJY/s1600/kenneth+williams.jpg

Beat me to it ...

If Modern family has though me anything it's that gay's are awesume people, and they make great parents, no different to hetero parents ... bar all the gay sex of course.

Sin City

o1s1n wrote: »

So your issue with gay people adopting isn't that they're gay, it's because of a technicality that they can only do so by being a single parent?

Or are you using this as a nice excuse to be against gay adoption and not sound like a bigot?

I think you are taking him up wrong too.

At the moment only a gay couple cant adopt but say a gay individual can, so if he does adopt and dies, his partner has no rights on the child. He is saying that that should be changed so if one dies the other still has legal rights on that child

So he is infact supporting gay adoption (or at least thats what I read)

wylam

Op can you give us a better explanation of what exactly your issue is?

And o1s1n , you might be jumping to conclusions there.

Tiddlypeeps

If the parents stay together to raise the child then it's just paperwork that says the child only has one parent and it should never really effect them.

The big issue with this system is if the parents split. The parent that is considered the guardian gets to call all the shots and the other parent would have no legal claim to the child. This is unfair on the child and the non-legal guardian parent because they may never get to see each other again if the other parent decides to be a dick.

There is also the issue that it is more difficult for a single person to adopt than a couple (open to correction on this as I'm pretty much going on hear say). Under the current system this would make it more difficult for gay couples to adopt than a heterosexual couple. This is obviously unfair.

So ye the system should be changed so that gay couples can adopt in a fashion where they are treated the same as heterosexual couples.

Trudiha

wylam wrote: »

Op can you give us a better explanation of what exactly your issue is?

On reading the gay marriage thread, the vast majority of people seen to be mostly indifferent, leaning towards not giving a ****e, until it comes to the issue of adoption, people have mentioned it (along with the rights of unmarried fathers) but seemed unwilling to go off topic so I wondered what issues people had with gay adoption.

Trudiha

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

If the parents stay together to raise the child then it's just paperwork that says the child only has one parent and it should never really effect them.

There can be issue around giving consent for medical treatment, taking the child on holiday alone and a bunch of other stuff, even while the parents are still in a functioning relationship.

bhamsteve

But what if the children catch the gay!
Won't somebody please think of the children

becost

Well I have one question for all the liberal supporters of gay adoption. Would you have preferred to have been raised by two mummies or two daddies? It's a yes/no answer. If everyone is 100% honest, I won't expect to get one Yes.

bhamsteve wrote: »

But what if the children catch the gay!
Won't somebody please think of the children

That's a tricky one. Is homosexuality genetic or a lifestyle choice. I always thought that gay adoption might hold the answer and it may show it to be a lifestyle choice. However, If children brought up by gay parents go to the dark side, I'm sure they'll say it's because the child had the gay gene.

Sin City

becost wrote: »

Well I have one question for all the liberal supporters of gay adoption. Would you have preferred to have been raised by two mummies or two daddies? It's a yes/no answer. If everyone is 100% honest, I won't expect to get one Yes.

Im sure most would prefer not to be adopted at all but for those who are Im sure they are happy enough to be raised in a safe and loving envoirment

Trudiha

becost wrote: »

Well I have one question for all the liberal supporters of gay adoption. Would you have preferred to have been raised by two mummies or two daddies? It's a yes/no answer. If everyone is 100% honest, I won't expect to get one Yes.

My parents are and were grand, they never gave me any reason to hold their heterosexuality against them and I wouldn't swap them for the world. My partner's five kids think the same about her and wouldn't swap her for a straight mum. Except the youngest, the youngest is convinced that she is a princess and the Diana POW should have been her real mummy.

wylam

@becost, thats not a question that can be answered. You cant pick your parents and whether they are same sex or not makes no difference at all once the child is cared for.I wonder how child abuse cases (mental ,physical , sexual) in ireland came from same sex couples?

becost

Sin City wrote: »

Im sure most would prefer not to be adopted at all but for those who are Im sure they are happy enough to be raised in a safe and loving envoirment

This is an answer to a different question

Madam_X

becost wrote: »

Well I have one question for all the liberal supporters of gay adoption. Would you have preferred to have been raised by two mummies or two daddies? It's a yes/no answer. If everyone is 100% honest, I won't expect to get one Yes.

Why do you have to say "liberal?"
I think the ideal is a male and female parental presence. Does that therefore make me think I should impose this view on others and lobby against gay couples adopting though? Nope. Plus, a loving same-sex couple raising a child is far better than what some of the alternatives could be for a child raised by an abusive/neglectful heterosexual couple.

It's not really a yes/no answer to your question - how can people know what they'd prefer if they haven't experienced one of them?

That's a tricky one.

It's not. They were taking the piss. Suggesting children will become gay because of being raised by a same-sex couple is as ridiculous as suggesting that children of heterosexual couples are only heterosexual.

Is homosexuality genetic or a lifestyle choice. I always thought that gay adoption might hold the answer and it may show it to be a lifestyle choice. However, If children brought up by gay parents go to the dark side, I'm sure they'll say it's because the child had the gay gene.

You're sure of nothing. Nah, people don't choose to be gay. Just like people don't choose to be straight. You fancy whom you fancy, it's not a choice.

becost

Madam_X wrote: »

Why do you have to say "liberal?"
I think the ideal is a male and female parental presence. Does that therefore make me think I should impose this view on others and lobby against gay couples adopting though? Nope. Plus, a loving same-sex couple raising a child is far better than what some of the alternatives could be for a child raised by an abusive/neglectful heterosexual couple.

It's not really a yes/no answer to your question - how can people know what they'd prefer if they haven't experienced one of them?

It's not. They were taking the piss. Suggesting children will become gay because of being raised by a same-sex couple is as ridiculous as suggesting that children of heterosexual couples are only heterosexual.

You're sure of nothing. Nah, people don't choose to be gay. Just like people don't choose to be straight. You fancy whom you fancy, it's not a choice.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on those points

crockholm

If myself and the wife were to die, and no sibling was willing to take my son,I would be happier to send him to a straight couple. Probably insistant on it.

Sin City

becost wrote: »

This is an answer to a different question

No its not

You asked the erronous question of which would you prefer to have 2 mammies and 2 daddies or a mamy and a daddy

Now, Im sure most kids will be happy with either as long as they are raised in a loving and safe home.

anncoates

I'd suppose I'd adopt a gay if he wasn't too camp.

anncoates

crockholm wrote: »

If myself and the wife were to die, and no sibling was willing to take my son,I would be happier to send him to a straight couple. Probably insistant on it.

Good call seeing as heterosexuals have never ever been guilty or bad parenting or neglect.

bhamsteve

becost wrote: »

Well I have one question for all the liberal supporters of gay adoption. Would you have preferred to have been raised by two mummies or two daddies? It's a yes/no answer. If everyone is 100% honest, I won't expect to get one Yes.

I think most people would prefer to be raised by both of their biological parents but that's not always possible. I was raised in an unconventional family system, including same sex relationships and in my opinion it is the personality of your parents/ role models that matter most, not their gender or sexuality.

becost wrote: »

That's a tricky one. Is homosexuality genetic or a lifestyle choice. I always thought that gay adoption might hold the answer and it may show it to be a lifestyle choice. However, If children brought up by gay parents go to the dark side, I'm sure they'll say it's because the child had the gay gene.

Who gives a fcuk, we all have the right to chose who we have relationships with and should not have to justify it to anybody.

wylam

[QUOTE=That's a tricky one. Is homosexuality genetic or a lifestyle choice. I always thought that gay adoption might hold the answer and it may show it to be a lifestyle choice. However, If children brought up by gay parents go to the dark side, I'm sure they'll say it's because the child had the gay gene.[/QUOTE]

What a backward way of thinking, to say that being gay is a lifestyle choice and think , yeah let em adopt and see if they turn their kids gay ,just goes to show that people in this country have a long way to go in terms of accepting people the way they are.No wonder people around the rest of Europe think we are a bunch of clowns.

crockholm

anncoates wrote: »

Good call seeing as heterosexuals have never ever been guilty or bad parenting or neglect.

Exactly. One of the main reasons for my choice.

anncoates

The 'envirronment' chestnut that straight kids might catch the gay from gay parents is of course instantly disproved by the fact that being brought up by straight parents doesn't appear to manically turn gay kids straight now, does it?

Trudiha

crockholm wrote: »

Exactly. One of the main reasons for my choice.

Do you really need a list of heterosexual parents who have beaten, abused or murdered their unfortunate children? It could take a while and it would be a very, very, very long list.

wylam

His post and his theory are not even worth engaging with.To suggest that kids can be "turned" gay by having gay parents is idiotic.And anyone that would believe such rubbish is an ignorant fool.

VinLieger

becost wrote: »

This is an answer to a different question

Nope you seem to assume your question only has 2 answers but in fact theres a 3rd that people of your viewpoint always seem to intentionally ignor, i would prefer to be raised by any loving parent be they gay, straight, biologial or adoptive. Doesnt matter as long as they loved me

crockholm

Trudiha wrote: »

Do you really need a list of heterosexual parents who have beaten, abused or murdered their unfortunate children? It could take a while and it would be a very, very, very long list.

Ah..so homosexuals are inherently better at parenting then,do you think.
And homosexuals are incapable of beating,abusing and murdering unfortunate children?

VinLieger

crockholm wrote: »

Ah..so homosexuals are inherently better at parenting then,do you think.
And homosexuals are incapable of beating,abusing and murdering unfortunate children?

Pretty sure she was questioning your reason for only wanting your child to go to straight parents

Trudiha

crockholm wrote: »

Ah..so homosexuals are inherently better at parenting then,do you think.
And homosexuals are incapable of beating,abusing and murdering unfortunate children?

I'm not saying that it's impossible but it is, statistically, considerably less likely.

miss no stars

becost wrote: »

Well I have one question for all the liberal supporters of gay adoption. Would you have preferred to have been raised by two mummies or two daddies? It's a yes/no answer. If everyone is 100% honest, I won't expect to get one Yes.

All other things being equal it boils down to a choice between a mummy and daddy; or either two mummies or two daddies. Fair enough. But all other things never are equal in adoption - the child ALWAYS has a biological mother and father... but for whatever reason, they can't raise them. So I think any child who had the potential to be bounced from foster home to foster home would much rather a stable home!

Nodin

crockholm wrote: »

Ah..so homosexuals are inherently better at parenting then,do you think.
And homosexuals are incapable of beating,abusing and murdering unfortunate children?

They didn't say that.

Why would you prefer a child to go to straight parents?

Henlars67

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Eagerly awaiting the first poster who is against it because the child may be bullied.

That is a valid reason for people to have concerns about it.

There is no doubt that children of homosexual couples will be bullied by children who don't know any better and probably in some cases by adults who should know better.

Depending on the extent of the bullying, it could lead to a very unhappy childhood regardless of how good their adoptive parents are.

I'm undecided whether or not that is a good enough reason to be against gay adoption, I don't have any other issues with it whatsoever, though I would like to say that people shouldn't be labelled as bigots for saying that the ideal place to raise a child is in a family with a mother and father.

crockholm

VinLieger wrote: »

Pretty sure she was questioning your reason for only wanting your child to go to straight parents

When this issue comes up, you find a lot of loaded questions like,"would you not prefer your kids to go to a loving home" when talking about gay parents. Can straight people not have stable loving homes too?

It's like a choice of sending kids to a wonderful loving gay couple or a disfunctional,abusive straight couple.

VinLieger

crockholm wrote: »

When this issue comes up, you find a lot of loaded questions like,"would you not prefer your kids to go to a loving home" when talking about gay parents. Can straight people not have stable loving homes too?

It's like a choice of sending kids to a wonderful loving gay couple or a disfunctional,abusive straight couple.

Your scrabbling for stuff now and you havent answered why you would prefer them to go to a straight couple? Is it your afraid they might catch the gay?

crockholm

Nodin wrote: »

They didn't say that.

Why would you prefer a child to go to straight parents?

i think she kinda did,with regards the second bit,maybe she meant it bout the first bit too,who knows.

Henlars67

Henlars67 wrote: »

That is a valid reason for people to have concerns about it.

No, it's a stupid reason, and pandering to the idea that it's ok to be bullied if you're different, and to avoid being different at all costs
It's also untrue

Nodin

crockholm wrote: »

i think she kinda did,with regards the second bit,maybe she meant it bout the first bit too,who knows.

Not the way I read it.

Why would you prefer a child to go to straight parents?

Seachmall

Henlars67 wrote: »

I'm undecided whether or not that is a good enough reason to be against gay adoption

Let me save you some time: It's not.