[NYU2012]

(Original post by Zalachenko)

I think this perfectly demonstrates just how intelligent you are.

No wonder you cannot form an argument or read research.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by HoneyFlux)
oh come on! puhleez...wtf is wrong with you?...there are ****ing mammals and whatever other forms of species out there that kill the opposite sex, or even eat their own babies etc...so does this make it okay for human beings to do the same???....because some underwater fish monster eats its husband, makes it okay for me to do so?????...**** off!

Claiming that because it is found in nature doesn't shown that it isn't ok...The burden of proof is on you since you are claiming that it is 'bad' or harmful. You have yet to provide sound reasoning as to why this is so. So far the only thing you have said is, 'because I think so'.

[BonjournoDeano]

lesbians

Gays

[Joinedup]

(Original post by SilverArch)
I read the court judgement for that case, and the couple had said to the social worker that they woud try and 'turn' a foster child who thought he/she was gay. I wouldn't want anyone with that attitude to foster an older child (or adopt at all).

But you are absolutely right, the emphasis should be on finding the right family for the individual child, not find a 'perect' family which doesn't exist. Besides, some of the children needing adoption would positively benefit from having a single parent or two women or two men as parents. Depends on the child and their background. There is no magic formula which every child should have, although many people seem to believe that

Well 'all' I got was the guy being interviewed on the radio, where it sounded like loving disapproval, probably what a lot of gays get off their parents.

TBH if he said something in court that a fork tongued lawyer was able to twist round to make it sound like he was confessing to pre meditating child abuse... well nice one by that lawyer - you've ****ed up a childs chances of adoption, hope that 'win' made you happy.

[Michaelj]

I say no because their kid will get so much grief and **** thoughout his school years, its bound to affect him one way or the other.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Michaelj)
I say no because their kid will get so much grief and **** thoughout his school years, its bound to affect him one way or the other.

My parents are straight, I got bullied for about 10 years.
My brother (same straight parents) was bullied so badly they pulled him out of school.
The bullying argument is a stupid argument, if people aren't allowed to adopt children because that child might get bullied for who their parents are, no child would ever get adopted.

[tufc]

(Original post by vwsl93)
I think gay couples should be allowed to adopt. It's just a shame that some people frown upon gay people's rights.

Because adoption shouldn't be seen as an issue of rights: it should be seen as an issue of what's best for the child, whether it's discriminatory or not.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by tufc)
Because adoption shouldn't be seen as an issue of rights: it should be seen as an issue of what's best for the child, whether it's discriminatory or not.

How can you say that having homosexual parents is somehow 'worse' than having heterosexual parents? Because unless you can do so then there is no reason to say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Michaelj)
I say no because their kid will get so much grief and **** thoughout his school years, its bound to affect him one way or the other.

In addition to what Mini said, this is just a cowardly argument. Instead of addressing the problem, mainly the bullying and grief, you would rather stop the child from having a loving, caring family? How does that make any sense?

[AshleyKay96]

Yes why not?

[tufc]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
How can you say that having homosexual parents is somehow 'worse' than having heterosexual parents? Because unless you can do so then there is no reason to say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

Nature created homosexuality. Homosexuality is therefore natural. Nature did not give homosexuals the ability to conceive children. Giving homosexuals children is therefore unnatural.

I don't have a problem with it when there's a shortage of adoptive parents, or when the child is old enough to make an informed choice for themselves. But I wholeheartedly disagree with putting a 1 or 2 year-old baby in such a complex situation that they can't understand. Vulnerable children are not equality fodder.

[Scienceisgood]

(Original post by tufc)
Nature created homosexuality. Homosexuality is therefore natural. Nature did not give homosexuals the ability to conceive children. Giving homosexuals children is therefore unnatural.

I don't have a problem with it when there's a shortage of adoptive parents, or when the child is old enough to make an informed choice for themselves. But I wholeheartedly disagree with putting a 1 or 2 year-old baby in such a complex situation that they can't understand. Vulnerable children are not equality fodder.

I fully understand what you mean. That is why, if I ever chose to adopt a kid, chances are I will chose someone who is about 12-15 so that way, they at least can weigh out the pros and cons considering sex education starts at around 9-10 in the UK.
Although, I will fully inform them of anything and will not hold anything back so they know everything they need to so they can make their own decision.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by tufc)
Nature created homosexuality. Homosexuality is therefore natural. Nature did not give homosexuals the ability to conceive children. Giving homosexuals children is therefore unnatural.

That's called the naturalistic fallacy.

I don't have a problem with it when there's a shortage of adoptive parents, or when the child is old enough to make an informed choice for themselves.

Why must there be a shortage of heterosexual parents? Why should homosexuals be relegated to the bottom, merely for being homosexual.

But I wholeheartedly disagree with putting a 1 or 2 year-old baby in such a complex situation that they can't understand. Vulnerable children are not equality fodder.

Do you also wholeheartedly disagree with putting a 1 or 2 year-old with a family that have disabled parents but have passed all the same screenings and standards as other potential parents? Because it's essentially the same thing. This argument is weak at best. Children at that age can't understand any situation that they are being put into and every familial situation is complex. What makes the homosexual parents somehow special? Because the child couldn't choose? But no child that age can choose.

[Michaelj]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
My parents are straight, I got bullied for about 10 years.
My brother (same straight parents) was bullied so badly they pulled him out of school.
The bullying argument is a stupid argument, if people aren't allowed to adopt children because that child might get bullied for who their parents are, no child would ever get adopted.

Yeah but difference is having gay parents will GUARANTEE bullying. This is because of the society we have in england and the immaturity of youth, sorry to break it to you. I'm not saying that the parents can't love the children and give them a good life but the kids need to venture outside of their household and into the world where they will encounter other people.

[Anna150]

(Original post by tufc)
Nature created homosexuality. Homosexuality is therefore natural. Nature did not give homosexuals the ability to conceive children. Giving homosexuals children is therefore unnatural.

I don't have a problem with it when there's a shortage of adoptive parents, or when the child is old enough to make an informed choice for themselves. But I wholeheartedly disagree with putting a 1 or 2 year-old baby in such a complex situation that they can't understand. Vulnerable children are not equality fodder.

Like someone else said, in nature some animals eat their babies/mates. Just because something is natural that doesn't make it right/ethical/moral.

You could use the same logic to say that people who are born sterile should not be allowed to adopt since nature did not mean for them to conceive and have children. Or that anyone who can't conceive 'naturally' shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

Nature gave siblings the ability to conceive, yet most people (and the law) would agree that it would be a bad idea due to the extremely high risk of disabilities and deformities.

To the child and the couple it's not a complex situation. If an interracial couple adopt a child it only becomes a 'complex' situation because of other peoples intolerance and bigotry.

[Scienceisgood]

(Original post by Michaelj)
Yeah but difference is having gay parents will GUARANTEE bullying. This is because of the society we have in england and the immaturity of youth, sorry to break it to you.

Actually, even before I became aware of my sexuality, I was always told that there was no difference between gay and straight people. Even though I haven't come out to my parents about my sexuality yet, they said even if I was gay (some of my friends have a weird sense of humour), it wouldn't bother them.
Just no sex under my parent's roof.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Michaelj)
Yeah but difference is having gay parents will GUARANTEE bullying. This is because of the society we have in england and the immaturity of youth, sorry to break it to you. I'm not saying that the parents can't love the children and give them a good life but the kids need to venture outside of their household and into the world where they will encounter other people.

Well...1. It doesn't guarantee that they will be bullied and 2. Bullying is not something that affects people being adopted. If that were the case then pretty much nobody would be able to adopt at all.

[Michaelj]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Well...1. It doesn't guarantee that they will be bullied and 2. Bullying is not something that affects people being adopted. If that were the case then pretty much nobody would be able to adopt at all.

I never said adopted kids would guarantee getting bullied, this thread is based towards homosexuals is it not?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Michaelj)
I never said adopted kids would guarantee getting bullied, this thread is based towards homosexuals is it not?

Uh.....you did. You said having homosexual parents guarantees bullying. Just look at the quote that I responded to...

[Scienceisgood]

Anyway, people assume bullying if they go to a public/private school.
People never really considered if they get tutored at home or home schooled did they? They can still make friends in the area, no?