Should gay people be allowed to adopt?

Original post by minimarshmallow

You don't want to go over it again because you're wrong? Hurray!

Do you want a sensible discussion where we consider each others ideas or do you want to go back to me mopping the floor with the lot of you?

Did you watch the Dawkins video? If my brother was gay and I was straight and I had a baby his 'gay gene' would be potentially passed on in my children, because we share some of the same genes.
And homosexuality is not 100% genetic, as evidenced by twin studies.

It would till be less successful over time.

Your suggested m/f child rearing partnership idea would probably work as a family unit, but it isn't necessary, so why bother considering it at all unless that is what people want to do?

Im not getting back on the merry go round role model argument.

Im only going to discus the gay gene.

Why not? Equality...

Original post by green.tea

Do you want a sensible discussion where we consider each others ideas or do you want to go back to me mopping the floor with the lot of you?

Can you read? You presented an argument, you were asked to produce relevant evidence and you failed. You were presented with relevant evidence that went against your viewpoint and then you continued to repeat yourself and say that peer-reviewed research had an agenda and shouldn't be trusted, when in fact that statement is factually inaccurate.

It would till be less successful over time.

Well the theory is that that is what happened with the homosexual men, and it was the bisexual men who were mating with the women they had been trusted with.
Oh, and homosexuality still isn't 100% genetic!

Im not getting back on the merry go round role model argument.

Im only going to discus the gay gene.

There is no role model argument. You are wrong.
And homosexuality isn't 100% genetic.

Reply 925

Original post by minimarshmallow

Oh, and homosexuality still isn't 100% genetic!

True, probably, but there is, probably, a large genetic component which would suffer as result of polices that caused gay adoption to become commonplace.

Reply 926

Original post by green.tea

True, probably, but there is, probably, a large genetic component which would suffer as result of polices that caused gay adoption to become commonplace.

Yes, there is a genetic component. But there will still be gay people having biological children. There will still be siblings of gay people having biological children. There will still be bisexuals who may or may not have this 'gay gene' having biological children.
And, gay people can already adopt in this country.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 927

frankieboy52

Original post by Scienceisgood

*Just to let you all know, I AM GAY myself*

Well, we all know there is a controversy as to whether or not gay people should be allowed to adopt because of the typical theme of one of the other;

1. Bullying
2. Not having a male/female role model (Whether gay or lesbian couple)
3. The typical "Without a role model of the same gender, they may become gay themselves"

I can personally say number 3 isn't true, I was raised in a heterosexual household and I can say I just don't find the opposite gender attractive.

Personally, since I am unlikely to have kids, I would like to adopt, but, I would obviously ask the kid if they wanted to be adopted by a same sex couple because it could get a bit awkward for them.

However, there are many kids out there born and are not wanted or their parents are unfit to be their guardians. So, I think if I become a man with a stable income in the future, I would like to adopt because I could provide a home for a child.

What do you think?

EDIT:
It would appear people are saying no on the poll without saying so by leaving any messages. I would like to understand the reasoning behind this by people against it leaving a message to voice your opinion. So far, only 1 or two seem to try and back up their claims.

EDIT2:
There is a series of research on page 4 of this thread posted by NYU2012 (Thanks)
So, if you want anything for gay parents to adopt, please visit.

First let me say,I have no feeling one way or another about gay marriages,but have to say that I am against them adopting children,I sincerely believe that children have to be brought up in a normal family circle ie father and mother to ensure they develop normally

Reply 928

Original post by minimarshmallow

Yes, there is a genetic component. But there will still be gay people having biological children. There will still be siblings of gay people having biological children. There will still be bisexuals who may or may not have this 'gay gene' having biological children.
And, gay people can already adopt in this country.

But the % of non gay geners adopting would b smaller than % of gay geners so its prevalence would decline in comparison.

Reply 929

najinaji

Original post by frankieboy52

First let me say,I have no feeling one way or another about gay marriages,but have to say that I am against them adopting children,I sincerely believe that children have to be brought up in a normal family circle ie father and mother to ensure they develop normally

Research suggests that children brought up by two women fare better in terms of mental health and wellbeing. Make of that what you will.

Reply 930

Original post by frankieboy52

First let me say,I have no feeling one way or another about gay marriages,but have to say that I am against them adopting children,I sincerely believe that children have to be brought up in a normal family circle ie father and mother to ensure they develop normally

Research shows that children from same-sex households develop the same as those from mixed-sex households.
I assume also that you are against single parent households and households where one or both parents work full-time and hire a nanny, because that's not a 'normal' household either.

Reply 931

aroy45

2

If people against this argue that the kid will have no female/male role models then they must also support taking children away from single parents?

Reply 932

Original post by green.tea

But the % of non gay geners adopting would b smaller than % of gay geners so its prevalence would decline in comparison.

If indeed this gene does exist, it survived through the period during which IVF and surrogates and artificial insemination didn't exist, so I think it'll be fine if some people who hold this gene decide to adopt instead of having their own biological children through one of these methods.

Reply 933

Original post by minimarshmallow

If indeed this gene does exist, it survived through the period during which IVF and surrogates and artificial insemination didn't exist, so I think it'll be fine if some people who hold this gene decide to adopt instead of having their own biological children through one of these methods.

That doesnt address the rationale of my point.

Reply 934

Original post by green.tea

That doesnt address the rationale of my point.

I don't even understand your point because you don't use proper spelling and grammar.

Edit: Don't understand why I'm being negged for this, he does have poor spelling and grammar and therefore I can't understand him...

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 935

Scienceisgood

OP

21

Original post by green.tea

That doesnt address the rationale of my point.

Oh what, how people should be gender controlled?
Like women being in the kitchen and being housewives?

Or how men should be gearheads or computer nerds?
Maybe how women shouldn't play football?

Is this what you are referring to?

Reply 936

My point. % of hetros adopting lower than % of homos = decline of gay gene.

Reply 937

Scienceisgood

OP

21

Original post by green.tea

My point. % of hetros adopting lower than % of homos = decline of gay gene.

Click Here Look at number 5.
The majority of women contain the gay gene because a large number of women do fantasize about having sex with another woman. I don't know how accurate this is but, maybe if a female could back me up?

Reply 938