The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

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.



In a word; yes. Without getting too personal, I myself am adopted and I would happily consent to having gay adoptive parents. If two people can provide love and stability then who cares if they're gay, straight, male or female. Cringe but true.
Reply 1081
Original post by chefdave
If you were a child in care and had the option of choosing between an infertile straight couple and a gay couple as adoptive parents which would you pick? And why?


I would pick the couple I felt most comfortable with, the couple I felt I would get along with the best and who I would enjoy living with the most, regardless of fertility or sexual orientation.
Original post by chefdave
These studies you speak of are meaningless because there's no way to isolate all the variables and just test the impact of homosexuality on child rearing. To conduct a fair test everything would need to be identical: wages, accommodation, diet, the child etc etc so that you were certain you were only testing one variable: sexuality. As this is impossible I put it to you that those studies don't have an ounce of credibility. The truth is we just don't know what the impact is, so it's better to use a tried and trusted method and allow straight couples and only straight couples to adopt children. These fancy liberal alternatives aren't worth the risk.

But in the end, the studies show that having homosexual parents do not negatively effect children, non the less. Other than maybe, random bigoted people they might meet while growing up. But I find that to be unrelated to the sexuality itself.
Original post by Stefan1991
Should homophobes be allowed to exist? Better question.

Seriously, let's be honest. The only reason why homosexuals wouldn't be allowed to adopt is homophobia. Let's stamp this ignorant mindset out now.


Its got nothing to do with homophobia, it that some people are fed up with the breakdown of traditional western familialism and the nuclear family. If gays adopt its just another blow to morality and traditional values.
Reply 1084
Original post by Jester94
And how is that? As I have already said, fertility, or lack thereof, is not a representation of a person's capacity as a parent.



So if for some reason you and your partner were unable to raise your own children you'd be perfectly happy to have them adopted by two homosexual men you didn't know?


I assume then that you, a person who is debating this issue from a computer through the internet, also steer clear of all other 'unnatural' things then?


The manipulation of the earth's resources is a process that is entirely natural to humans, indeed we've been doing it since time immemorial. Yes the end results are a lot cleverer now than when we started X thousand years but the basic principle remains the same. The creation of the laptop in essence is no different to the creation of fire or the wheel, we've just using our surroundings to gain a productive advantage that wasn't possible before. So in that sense the internet is entirely natural to mankind.
Reply 1085
Original post by Pyramidologist
Its got nothing to do with homophobia, it that some people are fed up with the breakdown of traditional western familialism and the nuclear family. If gays adopt its just another blow to morality and traditional values.


Same-sex couples already adopt. Have been doing for years.

It's such a blow, that you don't seem to have noticed.
Reply 1086
Original post by chefdave
So if for some reason you and your partner were unable to raise your own children you'd be perfectly happy to have them adopted by two homosexual men you didn't know?


I don't see how that would be any different to giving up your children to be adopted by any other couple that you didn't know. Perhaps I've missed something...
Original post by mmmpie
Same-sex couples already adopt. Have been doing for years.

It's such a blow, that you don't seem to have noticed.


Have they? So what is the thing that still being debated? gay marriage?

I'm not homosexual, nor do i care about homosexuals - so i don't know this kind of stuff you know.
Original post by chefdave
These studies you speak of are meaningless because there's no way to isolate all the variables and just test the impact of homosexuality on child rearing. To conduct a fair test everything would need to be identical: wages, accommodation, diet, the child etc etc so that you were certain you were only testing one variable: sexuality. As this is impossible I put it to you that those studies don't have an ounce of credibility. The truth is we just don't know what the impact is, so it's better to use a tried and trusted method and allow straight couples and only straight couples to adopt children. These fancy liberal alternatives aren't worth the risk.


Well they don't compare homosexuals with brilliant jobs to heterosexual members of the underclass! They can't be 100% perfect as you put it, but with comparisons made with approximate similarities between couples show no significant difference between the children of heterosexuals and homosexuals. The only way to perform your study would be with parents who were identical twins and children that were identical twins, and that wouldn't even be possible because you couldn't have gay and straight couples because you couldn't have one male and one female be identical twins - and this study would never be generalisable because we aren't all carbon copies of each other.
The fact is that with these variables controlled as far as they can be, they have found that there's no difference. And not just once either. Even with mostly matched samples, the same finding has been replicated several times to ensure external validity and consistency.
If the finding had been found once or twice you might have a point, but you don't.

Original post by chefdave
If you were a child in care and had the option of choosing between an infertile straight couple and a gay couple as adoptive parents which would you pick? And why?


I would pick the ones I got on with best. The gay couple could be not nice people and I would go with the straight couple. Or it could be the other way around.
This still doesn't have an impact on whether or not they could be good parents to me, I assume that if I'm getting the choice then they've both been screened as appropriate.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 1089
Original post by Pyramidologist
Have they? So what is the thing that still being debated? gay marriage?

I'm not homosexual, nor do i care about homosexuals - so i don't know this kind of stuff you know.


Same-sex marriage is being debated at the moment. The debate in this thread is largely academic.

Well, you said it would be a blow against morality and traditional values, which you seem to espouse. Can't be that big a blow if you didn't notice before, eh?
Reply 1090
Original post by mmmpie
I don't see how that would be any different to giving up your children to be adopted by any other couple that you didn't know. Perhaps I've missed something...


That doesn't answer the question. Imagine if there were two agencies, one that implemented a strict no gay adoption policy and another that sourced parents from all sections of the community -gay, bi, transgender, threeomes etc- because they were staunchly against discwimination. Which one would you pick?
(edited 11 years ago)
People need to stop beating around the bush. Why would anyone think that gays should not be alllowed to adopt? Most of the people who think that gays shouldnot be able to adopt are most likeley homophobic but not all. People think its unfair on the child. Why should a child have to have a gay couple as thier parents/gaurdians? Well why is that a problem if being gay is normal? It shouldn't be a problem! But it is a problem because of the way society thinks. And the reality is what society thinks will always prevail wether something is good/bad.
E.g. once society said women shouldnot have equal rights to men and blacks shouldnot have equal rights to whites. But it wasn't right.
The problem i can see with gays beign able to adopt are quite basic ones. It will ( and i hope i do not offend anyone) create a minority group, of children who have a gay couple as thier parents/gaurdians. It is likeley to cause alot of social pressures and anxiety. It could lead to all sorts. Thats the natural response form all miniorities, wether it be ethnic ect. Its quite sad, but its the likely outcome because of the way the world works.
Reply 1092
Original post by chefdave
That doesn't answer the question. Imagine if there were two agencies, one that implemented a strict no gay adoption policy and another that sourced parents from all sections of the community -gay, bi, transgender, threeomes etc- because they were staunchly against discwimination. Which one would you pick?


Your question was about adoptive parents - and I wasn't clear why you expected me to see a distinction.

I would pick the non-discriminatory one.
Reply 1093
Original post by mmmpie
Your question was about adoptive parents - and I wasn't clear why you expected me to see a distinction.

I would pick the non-discriminatory one.


Fair enough. However I suspect that the majority of the British public would choose the agency that discriminated on the basis of sexuality because heterosexual couples are a known quantity. Lets put it this way, I wouldn't be buying shares in the liberal agency :biggrin:
Original post by chefdave
Fair enough. However I suspect that the majority of the British public would choose the agency that discriminated on the basis of sexuality because heterosexual couples are a known quantity. Lets put it this way, I wouldn't be buying shares in the liberal agency :biggrin:


The non-discriminatory one would also have straight couples, just gay couples as well. So where's the issue?
Reply 1095
Original post by chefdave
Fair enough. However I suspect that the majority of the British public would choose the agency that discriminated on the basis of sexuality because heterosexual couples are a known quantity. Lets put it this way, I wouldn't be buying shares in the liberal agency :biggrin:


I wouldn't - the discriminatory one would be acting unlawfully. It wouldn't survive long.

I would however far rather that adoptive parents get selected on the strength of their fitness to be parents, and not on what the great British public thinks is or is not tasteful this week.
Reply 1096
Original post by minimarshmallow
The non-discriminatory one would also have straight couples, just gay couples as well. So where's the issue?


The issue is that your kid could potentially end up in the care of a menage a trois. If it came down to it I reckon 99% of people would choose the company that only allowed straight couples onto their books, but hey, that's just my opinion.
Reply 1097
Original post by mmmpie
I wouldn't - the discriminatory one would be acting unlawfully. It wouldn't survive long.

I would however far rather that adoptive parents get selected on the strength of their fitness to be parents, and not on what the great British public thinks is or is not tasteful this week.


lol, yeah that's about the size of it. When people disagree with your opinions on how the world should work just get the jackboot of the state to kick them into touch. Liberal tolerance my arse.
Original post by chefdave
The issue is that your kid could potentially end up in the care of a menage a trois. If it came down to it I reckon 99% of people would choose the company that only allowed straight couples onto their books, but hey, that's just my opinion.


Well I think the majority of people would choose the same way as me, especially as the discriminatory agency would be breaking the law.
I have as much evidence for my opinion that people would choose the non-discriminatory agency as you do for your opinion they would choose the discriminatory one...
Reply 1099
Original post by Pyramidologist
Its got nothing to do with homophobia, it that some people are fed up with the breakdown of traditional western familialism and the nuclear family. If gays adopt its just another blow to morality and traditional values.


Who gives a **** about traditional values? Traditional morality which brought us such memorable times such as slavery, hanging of gays, oppression of women, sexual repression and racism.

Please tell me what's so good about the traditional nuclear family. Daddy goes to work, drinks, beats his wife, has affairs and neglects his kids, mummy stays at home, cleans, and feels unfulfilled not allowed to divorce, children grow up to be intolerant bigots. Illegitimate children called bstards, abandoned and considered inferior. Homosexuals denied the chance to adopt said abandoned illegitimate children and raise a family.

Nice society you have there, "worked" for about two generations until it crumbled and died.