[ThumbsUp]

yeah of course they should be allowed

[ACooper]

I can't even really see why this is up for debate

[Dr. Bassman]

People saying 'better than no parents' or whatever sound pretty awful... does it really matter what gender your parents are? I doubt it does. What you're saying is basically that a male and female parent is better than two gay parents. Bad TSR, naughty.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Dr. Bassman)
People saying 'better than no parents' or whatever sound pretty awful... does it really matter what gender your parents are? I doubt it does. What you're saying is basically that a male and female parent is better than two gay parents. Bad TSR, naughty.

That's not exactly offensive, that's just saying it's better to have parents than none.

[thetobbit]

Yes, but the gender of the parents should be taken out of the equation and instead their fitness to adopt should be judged on whether they are nice people, suitable to parenting etc.

I don't support the "lets give everyone who wants to adopt a child because it's a human right bla bla"

[Dr. Bassman]

(Original post by Kiss)
That's not exactly offensive, that's just saying it's better to have parents than none.

Yeah I know, I'm just nit-picking. It's just the way it's phrased that gets me haha.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by thetobbit)
Yes, but the gender of the parents should be taken out of the equation and instead their fitness to adopt should be judged on whether they are nice people, suitable to parenting etc.

I don't support the "lets give everyone who wants to adopt a child because it's a human right bla bla"

Well obviously unfit parents shouldn't be allowed to adopt, that would be crazy. But yeah, the sex of the parents should not be factored into the equation when judging the quality of them as potential parents.

[buddhacoffee]

As long as the adoptive parents love, care and support their child, then it shouldn't matter what gender they are.

[Contrad!ction.]

I don't really see what the argument against them not adopting would consist of...?

'oh, the kid might turn out gay too' - is homosexuality contagious suddenly? If anything, a gay child having gay parents is a good thing, the child would probably find it a lot easier to come out to people who have had to do the same thing themselves. The support would be there from them and the child wouldn't have to worry about being accepted. Of course, this should be the case with straight parents as well, but unfortunately it isn't at the moment. Also, if straight parents find out that their child is gay, they can still have grandchildren via gay adoption, which is something that sometimes parents of gay people can worry about.

'the child must have a mother and a father, not a mother and a mother or a father and a father' - why's that? I could understand that coming from someone who lived in the 1800s, when women had a specific role and men did as well, as the male wouldn't provide all the things the woman could and vice versa. But nowadays, mothers' and fathers' roles aren't gender-specific. So why is it essential for children to have both?

'the kids will be bullied for having gay parents' - homosexuality is losing its stigma as gay people are being allowed more equality. Same went for race and religion. So surely, by allowing gay people to adopt/marry etc, this would make it easier for gay people to feel like they fit in. When people fully accept them, there won't be the bullying, so this argument doesn't work anyway. And it's more likely that their children will be open minded about LGBT+ issues, as they get to see some first hand.

I'm all for gay people adopting. Whether people can adopt should be based on their ability to love and care for their children, not for their gender/sexuality etc.

[Zalachenko]

**** no, poor children.

[Dupe]

of course they shouldnt. a child's interest is more important than a couple's interest.

[mevidek]

Yes, as long as they're good parents.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Zalachenko)
**** no, poor children.

Your argument and logical justification are outstanding. Clearly you've considered, very carefully, all the sociological and psychological research in order to reach your clearly very well informed and evidentially supported conclusion.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Dupe)
of course they shouldnt. a child's interest is more important than a couple's interest.

You have no basis to claim that the interests of the child are not being met...

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Dupe)
of course they shouldnt. a child's interest is more important than a couple's interest.

Providing the couple meet the same criteria that a straight couple would meet when being screened for suitability, how would that not be within the child's interest? The child is getting suitable parents.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Zalachenko)
**** no, poor children.

Yeah, I guess they're better off with no parents.
Oh wait...

Next time, present an argument.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Tortious)
I find it interesting that everyone posting in the thread is pro-gay adoption. We've yet to hear from the handful of people who disagree with it...

anyone who does disagree with it knows full well if they speak out theyll be castrated by everyone else so they end up keeping their thoughts to them selfs

[Zalachenko]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Yeah, I guess they're better off with no parents.
Oh wait...

Next time, present an argument.

No wait, actually, they are.

I think I'd shoot myself if I was sent to a homosexual household.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by cl_steele)
anyone who does disagree with it knows full well if they speak out theyll be castrated by everyone else so they end up keeping their thoughts to them selfs

Themselves*

If by castrated you actually mean presented with logical argumentation and evidence which proves that their unfounded opinions are unjustified, then yes.

[Ayshizzle]

Yes they should.

If a child has goes to a loving home, what does it matter what gender the parents are? Love is love.