This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should gay couples be allowed to raise adopted children?

A family just consists of people who love each other - being a man and a woman is just one option of many possible stable and loving family units.

Reply 61

Arminius

14

paddylad

It depends on the country. I believe they are in the UK.
It's not experimental. It's been done already. People have been raising children with different circumstances from the norm since time began.

Well, homosexuals clearly havn't.

And, as has already been mentioned more than once in this self same thread, there is no proof that children raised by same sex parents are any psychologically different.

There is no proof they will turn out normal either, thus it is an experiment. Pot luck.

Who are you to say what the ideal is/should be? Thousands of children who are raised by your ideal family unit have ended screwed up, because it can happen regardless of the family's set-up.

True, but over time societies all over the globe have settled into that model. This is for a reason. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

How is a kid raised in a gay house supposed to know how to live a life with a partner of a different sex? Just by asking this you demonstrate that you believe homosexuals shouldn't exist - why should it matter if these couples "breed" other homosexuals?!

Well, for society increasing number of homosexuals is a bad thing. because we have a low birth rate and gays don't have children. Therefore more homosexuals means even less children. I have nothing against gays on a personal level, but for society to prosper they must remain a minority. its quite simple, if 50% of people are gay in 2020 then our population will crash and our civilisation will die out. Do you want that?

If it weren't for people like you then those children would be able to have children too (via adoption or surrogacy) and the human race would go on (in case you go for the whole reproduction argument). And just so you know, BOTH media AND society demonstrate a heterosexual majority; most couples one sees in society, on the TV, or hear about on the radio or in conversation, are heterosexual couples. In a time where the world is so small a child does not need his or her parents to learn about everything.

What, they'll learn how to form a stable family from watching tv? lol. Don't think so.

Reply 62

paddy

14

Zebedee

Well, homosexuals clearly havn't.

So? They have for a while anyway, as has also been mentioned in this thread.

Zebedee

There is no proof they will turn out normal either, thus it is an experiment. Pot luck.

Anyone raising a child is pot luck. Thousands of children are born unwanted into straight couples and suffer as a consequence, why not let a loving couple who actually wants a child have one?
And people are ALWAYS "experimenting", parenting styles change over time i.e. all the myriad of 'guides' on how to raise babies nowadays. Oh and single parenting once had to be 'experimented' with, and that turned out fine, why would adding another parent of the same sex change that?

Zebedee

True, but over time societies all over the globe have settled into that model. This is for a reason. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Oh and because it's always been done, because everyone's doing it, it therefore automatically right? No. Slave trading was considered the norm for thousands of years, in some parts of the world it still is, but it very clearly isn't. Arguing that something is right because it's traditional is flawed logic.

Zebedee

Well, for society increasing number of homosexuals is a bad thing. because we have a low birth rate and gays don't have children. Therefore more homosexuals means even less children. I have nothing against gays on a personal level, but for society to prosper they must remain a minority. its quite simple, if 50% of people are gay in 2020 then our population will crash and our civilisation will die out. Do you want that?

Have you een selectively listening to this entire thread? No that will not happen, because for one thing the birth rate is only low in developed countries, I do believe many places such as China are experiencing overpopulation - have you been living under a rock these past years?
And, as I already said, homosexuality wouldn't be a sentence to a childless life if it weren't for the likes of you. Ever heard of surrogacy? Adoption even as this thread is actually about. Just because homosexuals can't "grow it themselves" doesn't limit them from raising children.

Zebedee

What, they'll learn how to form a stable family from watching tv? lol. Don't think so.

Again, I didn't JUST mention the TV, did I? No. Try reading the whole thing next time. I said that we also learn from society i.e. our community of family, aunts and uncles and grandparents etc. And who's to say that gay couples cannot provide a stable family unit? You? I'd like to see you provide proof for that.

In all your talk of protection of the children you're just masking your own prejudices, and badly at that.

Reply 63

2026

15

paddylad

So? They have for a while anyway, as has also been mentioned in this thread.

Anyone raising a child is pot luck. Thousands of children are born unwanted into straight couples and suffer as a consequence, why not let a loving couple who actually wants a child have one?
And people are ALWAYS "experimenting", parenting styles change over time i.e. all the myriad of 'guides' on how to raise babies nowadays. Oh and single parenting once had to be 'experimented' with, and that turned out fine, why would adding another parent of the same sex change that?

Oh and because it's always been done, because everyone's doing it, it therefore automatically right? No. Slave trading was considered the norm for thousands of years, in some parts of the world it still is, but it very clearly isn't. Arguing that something is right because it's traditional is flawed logic.

Have you een selectively listening to this entire thread? No that will not happen, because for one thing the birth rate is only low in developed countries, I do believe many places such as China are experiencing overpopulation - have you been living under a rock these past years?
And, as I already said, homosexuality wouldn't be a sentence to a childless life if it weren't for the likes of you. Ever heard of surrogacy? Adoption even as this thread is actually about. Just because homosexuals can't "grow it themselves" doesn't limit them from raising children.

Again, I didn't JUST mention the TV, did I? No. Try reading the whole thing next time. I said that we also learn from society i.e. our community of family, aunts and uncles and grandparents etc. And who's to say that gay couples cannot provide a stable family unit? You? I'd like to see you provide proof for that.

In all your talk of protection of the children you're just masking your own prejudices, and badly at that.

Completely agree.

Reply 64

Arminius

14

paddylad

Anyone raising a child is pot luck. Thousands of children are born unwanted into straight couples and suffer as a consequence, why not let a loving couple who actually wants a child have one?

Its not something the authorities decide, straight couples make the babies themselves. Nothing can be done to stop that.

And people are ALWAYS "experimenting", parenting styles change over time i.e. all the myriad of 'guides' on how to raise babies nowadays. Oh and single parenting once had to be 'experimented' with, and that turned out fine, why would adding another parent of the same sex change that?

It might change it, different parenting styles is quite different to a different sort of parents. What if in 20 years time there are robots that are considerd good child rearers? would it be moral to give orpahn children to robots to adopt? when you have no idea of what results that may have?

Oh and because it's always been done, because everyone's doing it, it therefore automatically right? No. Slave trading was considered the norm for thousands of years, in some parts of the world it still is, but it very clearly isn't. Arguing that something is right because it's traditional is flawed logic.

I'm not saying its right, just that i see nothing wrong with the status quo.

Have you een selectively listening to this entire thread? No that will not happen, because for one thing the birth rate is only low in developed countries, I do believe many places such as China are experiencing overpopulation - have you been living under a rock these past years?

Yeah, it is allready happening. What they do in china is irrelvent, it is important for our nation to produce enough children to keep ourselves going o we will die out as a nation.

And, as I already said, homosexuality wouldn't be a sentence to a childless life if it weren't for the likes of you.

Please, just get over it. In order to make a child you need male and female, end of story.

Ever heard of surrogacy? Adoption even as this thread is actually about. Just because homosexuals can't "grow it themselves" doesn't limit them from raising children.

No, they could raise children. But i don't think its the place of government to decide who raises children.

In all your talk of protection of the children you're just masking your own prejudices, and badly at that.

I do care about the wellfare of the children first and foremost, i think letting gay couples adopt is playing with fire and could go badly wrong. Are we that desperate for homes? or is it that gay couples are that desperate for children? i think the pressure for this to happen is coming from homosexual couples rather than for a shortage of regular adoptees.

Reply 65

paddy

14

Zebedee

Its not something the authorities decide, straight couples make the babies themselves. Nothing can be done to stop that.

Child services can actually. They have the power to take a child away if they see the parents as unfit.

Zebedee

It might change it, different parenting styles is quite different to a different sort of parents. What if in 20 years time there are robots that are considerd good child rearers? would it be moral to give orpahn children to robots to adopt? when you have no idea of what results that may have?

What is it with you and your slippery slope logic? And all the robot analogies? We're not talking about robots we're talking about gay couples.

Zebedee

I'm not saying its right, just that i see nothing wrong with the status quo.

So what? We're not saying that the status quo should change completely, just that it should adapt to the changing times we live in.

Zebedee

Yeah, it is allready happening. What they do in china is irrelvent, it is important for our nation to produce enough children to keep ourselves going o we will die out as a nation.

It's not the gay couples' fault that heterosexual couples aren't having enough children. The fact is that technically couples should have at least two children per couple if they want to maintain the population size but that isn't happening due to smaller families and contraception - don't blame gay couples. And anyway the whole idea of a national identity is being eroded bit by bit due to globalisation, emmigration and immigration. But anyway I digress.

Zebedee

Please, just get over it. In order to make a child you need male and female, end of story.

Which can be done by surragacy :rolleyes:

Take one sperm from a homosexual couple, one egg from a fertility clinic and one surrogate and hey presto there's your baby :rolleyes:

Maybe slightly more drawn out then two straight people having sex but it still works.

Zebedee

No, they could raise children. But i don't think its the place of government to decide who raises children.

Again, child services do. And adoption agencies decide who must raise the unwanted child ALL THE TIME, as they have done for years. Oh and they have no control over surrogacy.

Zebedee

I do care about the wellfare of the children first and foremost, i think letting gay couples adopt is playing with fire and could go badly wrong. Are we that desperate for homes? or is it that gay couples are that desperate for children? i think the pressure for this to happen is coming from homosexual couples rather than for a shortage of regular adoptees.

It is true, the welfare of the child is paramount. However it is puzzling why there are people such as yourself who hide behind this to denounce gay parenting. You keep going on about it being an experiment - it's ALREADY been done in some places. Seriously children are more psychologically robust then people give them credit for. Quite why people keep harping on about role models and the like also puzzles me given that, if nature teaches us anything, it is the two-parent model that is unnatural as males often procreate then move on in nature. By your logic we should also be wary of heterosexual couples where the male is effeminate or the female is masculine. We ALL have qualities that are both masculine and feminine, no one is only one or the other.
And conversely it could be argued that the pressure against gay adopting is coming from prejudice rather than actual concern for the child.

I'm getting some serious BNP vibes from you.

Reply 66

Arminius

14

paddylad

Child services can actually. They have the power to take a child away if they see the parents as unfit.

Yes, but they can't stop people having children in the first place.

What is it with you and your slippery slope logic? And all the robot analogies? We're not talking about robots we're talking about gay couples.

The point i was trying to make was that if we did it with robots it would be an experiment, i don't see how this is any different. We are introducing children to a new type of parenting.

It's not the gay couples' fault that heterosexual couples aren't having enough children. The fact is that technically couples should have at least two children per couple if they want to maintain the population size but that isn't happening due to smaller families and contraception - don't blame gay couples.

Well, its two fold. Both that heterosexual couples aren't having enough and also that there are too many homosexual couples having none. Its not the gay couples "fault" so to speak because they can't help their sexuality, but it is nonetheless true that more gays = lower birth rate. So its part of the birth rate problem.

Which can be done by surragacy :rolleyes:

Take one sperm from a homosexual couple, one egg from a fertility clinic and one surrogate and hey presto there's your baby :rolleyes:

Maybe slightly more drawn out then two straight people having sex but it still works.

Well, thats not the gay couples child is it. Its the child of one of the gay people and a random. It is still true that male and female are needed in order to have children.

It is true, the welfare of the child is paramount. However it is puzzling why there are people such as yourself who hide behind this to denounce gay parenting. You keep going on about it being an experiment - it's ALREADY been done in some places.

Well, it may have happened before but if government makes this a legal situation then it will be much more widespread.

Seriously children are more psychologically robust then people give them credit for. Quite why people keep harping on about role models and the like also puzzles me given that, if nature teaches us anything, it is the two-parent model that is unnatural as males often procreate then move on in nature.

Humans by nature are semi-monogamous. Many animals in nature (swans etc) are exclusively monogamous, for evolutionary reasons.

And conversely it could be argued that the pressure against gay adopting is coming from prejudice rather than actual concern for the child.

I guess, what is this prejudice you speak of? i just think its a bad idea. I'm entitled to have this opinion.

Reply 67

suneilr

3

Zebedee

But i don't think its the place of government to decide who raises children.

But if you don't want the government to decide who raises children then surely that means you agree that there shouldn't be any restictions on the adoption process and therefore gay couples should be allowed to adopt?

Reply 68

Tag

8

Homosexuals can have children, jsut not together. there are many other ways to be in a agy couple and have a family - adoption, sperm donation or a surogate mother . . . what does the parental sexuality have to do witha child?

And how does living in a nuclear family automatically assume kids will grow up learning how to treat people correctly? if anything, homosexuals will be more concerned with teaching their kids how to treat both sex's equally and ensurig that their child is happy in what ever sexuality they become.

Reply 69

kizer

OP

15

Zebedee - by your logic the only people who should be allowed to have children are couple who already have children and raised them well. Because otherwise, it's an experiment! Or are you making the fallacy of lumping groups together and making generalisations that don't hold when you consider individuals? dum dum duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

Reply 70

flicmac

Zoecb

A family just consists of people who love each other - being a man and a woman is just one option of many possible stable and loving family units.

I agree with this. People may have seen my posts on previous threads on this topic. I'd like to change my opinion if I may. I'm thinking I was a bit of an idiot back then.

If two people love each other and want to love and care for a child who needs that love and care, then I say, let them. Who am I to tell two people that the love they have for each other is wrong, or not 'normal'?

So yes, i reckon gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

As for the "they'd get bullied" argument, as others have said, many many children are bullied, this shouldn't stop a child from being given a loving home and a family.

Reply 71

Psyk

16

Why do people make the assumption that the more we accept homosexuality, the more people will be gay? Zebedee is worried that we will end up with a gay majority and thus we will die out. But however accepting we are of homosexuality I don't think that will ever happen. I certainly don't think I would turn homosexual just because there are a lot of homosexuals around me (well I haven't so far and I can't imagine that changing).

Reply 72

jumpinglunch

13

Yes they should be allowed,but won't the children be victimised at school about it?

Reply 73

Arminius

14

Psyk

Why do people make the assumption that the more we accept homosexuality, the more people will be gay? Zebedee is worried that we will end up with a gay majority and thus we will die out. But however accepting we are of homosexuality I don't think that will ever happen. I certainly don't think I would turn homosexual just because there are a lot of homosexuals around me (well I haven't so far and I can't imagine that changing).

You may be right but i'm not willing to gamble my nations future on that assumption.

If we had a high birth rate then it would be more acceptable but the demographic situation at the moment is for a significant decline in british born children. Having even 1% more homosexuals in the population would rapidly accelerate our "grey crisis" with all the subsequent consequences for pensions and the economy.

Reply 74

Ethelred the Unready

Having even 1% more homosexuals in the population would rapidly accelerate our "grey crisis" with all the subsequent consequences for pensions and the economy.

Nah, we could just accept more immigrants into the country to work for the elderly's pensions. Or do you have a problem with that other than that they're "foreign"? [In fact, it would perhaps be more stable, since immigration is theoretically more controllable than birth rate.]

Reply 75

Arminius

14

Profound

Nah, we could just accept more immigrants into the country to work for the elderly's pensions. Or do you have a problem with that other than that they're "foreign"?

we've been over the issue many times, suffice to say immigration is only a short term solution for a long term problem and creates additional problems in the process.

(think about it, immigration builds the worker base to support the old, hence we will need more migrants in the future to support the old immigrants in term, and so on the population will expand and this expansion will accelerate).

The true cause of our pensions problem is that we have too low a retirement age for todays life expectancy and a "baby boomer" population spike imminent. The "politically hard" but fundamentally right answer to these problems is to change the pensions system and implement measures to balance the population in the LONG term.

Reply 76

Zoecb

11

Zebedee

You may be right but i'm not willing to gamble my nations future on that assumption.

If we had a high birth rate then it would be more acceptable but the demographic situation at the moment is for a significant decline in british born children. Having even 1% more homosexuals in the population would rapidly accelerate our "grey crisis" with all the subsequent consequences for pensions and the economy.

Don't be daft. In this day and age you don't need heterosexuals having sex in order to produce babies. Do the words turkey baster mean nothing to you? And that's just the least sophisticated of it...

Reply 77

Zoecb

11

Not to mention the idea that people can be 'encouraged' to be gay or not is entirely preposterous.

Reply 78

Apagg

13

Zebedee

we've been over the issue many times, suffice to say immigration is only a short term solution for a long term problem and creates additional problems in the process.

(think about it, immigration builds the worker base to support the old, hence we will need more migrants in the future to support the old immigrants in term, and so on the population will expand and this expansion will accelerate).

The true cause of our pensions problem is that we have too low a retirement age for todays life expectancy and a "baby boomer" population spike imminent. The "politically hard" but fundamentally right answer to these problems is to change the pensions system and implement measures to balance the population in the LONG term.

It's better than having kids, around 30% of immigrants return home before claiming a pension. Immigrants also place a lower strain on the welfare system in general because many are already educated.

Reply 79

Jonatan

13

Zebedee

You may be right but i'm not willing to gamble my nations future on that assumption.

If we had a high birth rate then it would be more acceptable but the demographic situation at the moment is for a significant decline in british born children. Having even 1% more homosexuals in the population would rapidly accelerate our "grey crisis" with all the subsequent consequences for pensions and the economy.

Oh don't be silly, even if gay parenting would cause more children to be gay ( current consensus among psychologists is that it doesn't ) then 1% would really not make any difference in the short run. Let me run some numbers for you:

0.99^2 ~=0.98
0.99^5 ~=0.95
0.99^10 ~= 0.90

I.e, even assuming heterosexuals had just 1 child on average, no immigration, and that no homosexual couples would have children, it would still take 10 generations for the accumulated birthrate to sink by 10% as a result of a 1% increase in the number of gays. As the majority of people tend to wait until they are above 25-30 before having kids that would mean it would take in excess of 300 years for the change you suggest to reduce the birth rate by 10%. I wouldn't call that a rapid "grey crisis". In reality we are likely to see a continued growth of population, both worldwide and locally.

Seriously, if population decline was any concern adjusting our education and career system to make it easier for women to have kids when they are the most fertile would have a massively greater impact on fertility than gay adoption ever could. Of course, I'm willing to wager there is some level of correlation between people who actually think gay adoption is a threat to the nation ( I mean seriously, try saying that with a straight face... ) and people who would oppose social changes that favour women giving birth in their 20ies.

Also, for completeness sake people may find it interesting to know that fertility treatment is a rather costly procedure. It would be substantially cheaper to adjust society to allow women to have children at an early, than the current system where you are more or less forced into building a career first and then try to treat declines in fertility that occurs as women approach their 40ies.

Should gay couples be allowed to raise adopted children?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you