Should gay people be allowed to adopt?

Original post by Frey

I, myself, am more than happy for gay/lesbian couples to adopt. However, in the current climate, I would have to say no. This is because until it's socially acceptable (which it may just be in the future) the child in question will be open to a lot of serious bullying and unhappiness, and at the end of the day, that's what's important, the child.

I agree that the child is what's important. But social acceptability should have nothing to do with adoption of the child. If you want to rule out parents who may potentially cause the child to be bullied or subject to unhappiness then you will have almost 0 qualified parents. It is also a cowardly way out. Instead of giving the children a good and loving home and addressing the problem of bullying and acceptance, you would rather keep the children in a foster home which is known to be worse than being adopted in many cases.

Reply 762

Original post by minimarshmallow

The child will be open to bullying and unhappiness with a straight couple. Or if it stays in care. This is not an argument.

no, but a child is 'asking for it' (horrible way to put it) if they have two mums/ two dads. It's setting the child up for bullying before they've even been adopted. Like I said, I am happy for gay couples to adopt, but it just worries me thinking about the difficulties these children are likely to encounter, because for many Brits (unfortunately) it's not sociably acceptable. By all means it's up to the couple in the end, but I hope this is something they would seriously consider. Also children stay in care, regardless of the couples available.

Reply 763

minimarshmallow

Exactly!
It is literally just the title that seems to make him think it supports his side. And the title is sensationalised in order to make people click on it.
I actually did have a seminar on this. We read a journal article about imitating violent TV shows, and then a Telegraph article that reported on the article, and it didn't sound like the Telegraph people had even read the article!

Reply 764

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

I agree that the child is what's important. But social acceptability should have nothing to do with adoption of the child. If you want to rule out parents who may potentially cause the child to be bullied or subject to unhappiness then you will have almost 0 qualified parents. It is also a cowardly way out. Instead of giving the children a good and loving home and addressing the problem of bullying and acceptance, you would rather keep the children in a foster home which is known to be worse than being adopted in many cases.

I just think it's something that has to be seriously kept in mind, but I'm all for offering support if that's what you want to do.

Reply 765

sarahlovesfun

of course they should! the end.

Reply 766

minimarshmallow

Original post by Frey

no, but a child is 'asking for it' (horrible way to put it) if they have two mums/ two dads. It's setting the child up for bullying before they've even been adopted. Like I said, I am happy for gay couples to adopt, but it just worries me thinking about the difficulties these children are likely to encounter, because for many Brits (unfortunately) it's not sociably acceptable. By all means it's up to the couple in the end, but I hope this is something they would seriously consider. Also children stay in care, regardless of the couples available.

And yet I know a guy who has two mums who hasn't ever been bulled for it, so ruling out gay parents because of a possibility is not a good strategy.
Are you also opposed to gingers adopting? Fat people adopting? People who don't wear designed clothes adopting? All of these are reasons people can get bullied, and in your own words (and I know what you mean even if it's phrased badly) would be 'asking for it'.
Edit: This sounds a lot like I'm attacking you, I'm not meaning to. I'm just trying to point out why this argument is flawed and you don't need to worry.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 767

Well then there we go. It's just my own personal worry, and not my choice in the end. If a gay couple chooses to adopt I'd be more than happy to support them.

Reply 768

Original post by Frey

I just think it's something that has to be seriously kept in mind, but I'm all for offering support if that's what you want to do.

I'm not saying that you don't want to offer support. But your reasoning is flawed. As anyone with 'nerdy' parents, or 'embarrassing' parents, or red-headed parents, or any other number of kinds of parents have the potential to get bullied in school. But that doesn't make them unfit parents nor does it mean the child wouldn't be well off with them. It means society has some issues and those need to be addressed.

Reply 769

Original post by minimarshmallow

And yet I know a guy who has two mums who hasn't ever been bulled for it, so ruling out gay parents because of a possibility is not a good strategy.
Are you also opposed to gingers adopting? Fat people adopting? People who don't wear designed clothes adopting? All of these are reasons people can get bullied, and in your own words (and I know what you mean even if it's phrased badly) would be 'asking for it'.

But homosexuality, unfortunately, is a serious social no for a lot of people in Britain still, you can't put it in the same league as what you've just listed.

I know it's not a good strategy, and I do wish for gay couples to adopt and for people to be happy with it. But, if it wasn't such a problem, this thread wouldn't be here in the first place. I'm not denying that they make great parents (which I know they do) and claiming that every child would get bullied; there are lots of great stats, but unfortunately, in Britain, it's still a fairly ugly social norm not to see it as acceptable, and this does have it's adverse consequences on the children in question.

Reply 770

green.tea

Durham law guy again!!! :biggrin:

What logical reason is there that another mother solves the lack of father?

..... This was the worst response ever. Did you even consider what was being asked? Just because a heterosexual adopts doesn't mean that a role model will be present. He asked why shouldn't heterosexual couples also have to prove that they can and will provide a role model?

Both parents being present for reasonable time should apply to everyone. Extra people are only required when on gender is missing.

Of course, this entire discussion on role models is completely irrelevant so I have no idea why you continually bring it up -- same-sex family research has never found that a child in a same-sex family home is in any way worse off than their heterosexual counterparts. This includes, but is not limited to, the child having everything a child needs (which includes your insistence on a role model). What part of this do you not understand?

I trust the research without political motivation over yours as it is combined with my own experience and conventional wisdom. Your increasingly shrill protestations over its supposed irrelevance arent backed up by any sort of rationale.

Reply 771

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

I'm not saying that you don't want to offer support. But your reasoning is flawed. As anyone with 'nerdy' parents, or 'embarrassing' parents, or red-headed parents, or any other number of kinds of parents have the potential to get bullied in school. But that doesn't make them unfit parents nor does it mean the child wouldn't be well off with them. It means society has some issues and those need to be addressed.

see my reply to minimarshmallow.

Reply 772

minimarshmallow

Original post by green.tea

What logical reason is there that another mother solves the lack of father?

*yawn* the role model doesn't need to be a parent. How many times?

Both parents being present for reasonable time should apply to everyone. Extra people are only required when on gender is missing.

So only straight couples where neither parent works should be allowed to adopt?

I trust the research without political motivation over yours as it is combined with my own experience and conventional wisdom. Your increasingly shrill protestations over its supposed irrelevance arent backed up by any sort of rationale.

Psychological research is done out of interest, usually by universities. Sure, it might have to be something that is politically relevant in order to get funding for a larger study - but my research is not being funded by anyone and it's still getting done. But it doesn't matter where the funding is from, the results will be the results, whether it is what the politicians or the companies providing the funding want to hear or not.

And research about single-parent families is not relevant to same-sex families, because they're not the same. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 773

Original post by green.tea

What logical reason is there that another mother solves the lack of father?

What logical reason couldn't another mother solve that? Not to mention that why it is the way it is, doesn't matter. The fact is homosexual couple's who are parents raise kids that turn out just as well as heterosexual couple's who raise kids. End of discussion. Can you show otherwise? No? Then there is no reason for them not to be able to adopt. :smile:

Both parents being present for reasonable time should apply to everyone. Extra people are only required when on gender is missing.

That's blatantly not true. Just because a father is present doesn't mean that he will be used as a role-model nor does it mean he will be a good role-model. But again this is irrelevant because nothing says you need two parents of opposite genders.

I trust the research without political motivation over yours as it is combined with my own experience and conventional wisdom. Your increasingly shrill protestations over its supposed irrelevance arent backed up by any sort of rationale.

And which research is that? The research that the government used and The Prince's Trust, which allow for homosexuals to adopt? What research supports your own biases? Not to mention I have shown you how your common sense is wrong. :smile:

Also your own experience as you described it proves our point. You didn't have a father, yet here you are perfectly functional and for all intents and purposes a 'normal' and well adjusted person. You are a perfect example of why a father is not needed :smile:

Reply 774

Original post by Frey

But homosexuality, unfortunately, is a serious social no for a lot of people in Britain still, you can't put it in the same league as what you've just listed.

I know it's not a good strategy, and I do wish for gay couples to adopt and for people to be happy with it. But, if it wasn't such a problem, this thread wouldn't be here in the first place. I'm not denying that they make great parents (which I know they do) and claiming that every child would get bullied; there are lots of great stats, but unfortunately, in Britain, it's still a fairly ugly social norm not to see it as acceptable, and this does have it's adverse consequences on the children in question.

For starters, I just want to point out that I am not trying to be obstinate or arguable, and I appreciate that you support homosexual's rights to adopt. However on your points, there are also plenty of stereotypes for some of the qualities that both mini and I suggested. And kids are very commonly bullied for them. The point is that just because a child may get bullied isn't a reason to deny them an otherwise good home.

Reply 775

green.tea

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

No it doesn't. I said we undertand how families work. I didn't say we know everything. However we do understand how homosexual parents affect outcomes of children. They don't. Studies have this over and over again. We understand and know this. And then of course it has been observed that same-sex adoption happens in nature so we aren't really tampering with anything.

You said we understand how children and families work. We dont fully understand those things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony

That is what The Prince's Trust says. The rest was all interpretation by the Daily Mail which is not a very reliable or credible source is it? :rolleyes:

Show me where she says children need male or female role models. She didn't? Hm..what did she say? ‘It is nothing less than a tragedy that so many young people feel they don’t have a role model.
‘We should not underestimate the impact a positive adult influence can have on a young person.....so....adult influence. Gender neutral. A role model. Non specified gender...Show me where The Prince's Trust says you need a male or female role model again? :rolleyes:

We went over this already.

EDIT: Just to clarify, nowhere in the article did it state the role models had to be a parent either. Merely that there should be one. :smile:

So again saying that homosexuals don't fill the role model is irrelevant as it doesn't have to be the parents.

The study was done on those that lacked the parent role model :confused:

I dont see why the mails right wing bias makes them worse than you and your left wing one.

Reply 776

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

For starters, I just want to point out that I am not trying to be obstinate or arguable, and I appreciate that you support homosexual's rights to adopt. However on your points, there are also plenty of stereotypes for some of the qualities that both mini and I suggested. And kids are very commonly bullied for them. The point is that just because a child may get bullied isn't a reason to deny them an otherwise good home.

Well then, if that's your view, which I'm afraid I have my reservations about, then there's no problem and you should adopt. If you think you can provide a child with a good enough home and care, you should fight for it, and not be caring what others think! good luck :smile:

Reply 777