Should gay people be allowed to adopt?

Original post by chefdave

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.

Yeah, my opinion is that its not wrong to kill people, how dare the law say I can't do that?!?

The law says that we should treat people equally, what's wrong with that?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1102

Original post by minimarshmallow

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...

Right, so instead of allowing professionals and parents make the decision autonomously you'd prefer it if the state forced their hand and made them accept gay couples even if it was against their wishes?

This is precisely the reason why I oppose the gay rights lobby, not because they want equal rights, but because they want to use the power of the state to force everyone else to dance to their tune. I'm glad we finally got to the heart of the matter.

Reply 1103

blu tack

9

Original post by chefdave

Right, so instead of allowing professionals and parents make the decision autonomously you'd prefer it if the state forced their hand and made them accept gay couples even if it was against their wishes?

This is precisely the reason why I oppose the gay rights lobby, not because they want equal rights, but because they want to use the power of the state to force everyone else to dance to their tune. I'm glad we finally got to the heart of the matter.

What tune will you have to dance to exactly? If you don't like gay adoption, don't partner up with a guy and adopt a baby.
The government isn't the thought police, you can oppose it if you want. Luckily, not everyone thinks like you.

Reply 1104

Original post by minimarshmallow

Yeah, my opinion is that its not wrong to kill people, how dare the law say I can't do that?!?

The law says that we should treat people equally, what's wrong with that?

Eh? What's murder got to do with the price of fish?

If you're correct (and you may well be given the mess the country is in) the law goes well beyond it's remit by forcing people to consider gay couples as suitable adoptive parents. Gays don't have a right to other people's children. From a moral perspective why is that so difficult to understand?

Reply 1105

User414413

Does it matter what the majority of us would choose? We are people with our own biases. Children are innocent. The only reason a child would oppose a homosexual parent would be because of either society who are unaccepting or their homophobic upbringing. Parents who choose to give their child up for adoption can already choose a heterosexual couple and statistically are likely to choose them and for those who get their children taken away from them, **** em it's not their interest that's important.

Reply 1106

Original post by chefdave

Right, so instead of allowing professionals and parents make the decision autonomously you'd prefer it if the state forced their hand and made them accept gay couples even if it was against their wishes?

This is precisely the reason why I oppose the gay rights lobby, not because they want equal rights, but because they want to use the power of the state to force everyone else to dance to their tune. I'm glad we finally got to the heart of the matter.

Oh dear. Let me tell you what the law says about this issue.

The adoption act states that single people and unmarried couples (including same sex couples) may adopt children - that's it. All it says is that it is possible for a judge to grant an adoption order.

The Equality Act (Goods and Services) Regulations state that it is unlawful for a provider of a service to discriminate on various grounds including sexual orientation. Performing the assessment on prospective adoptive parents is a service within that definition - so it is illegal to refuse to provide such an assessment or to provide an assessment of inferior quality because of the sexual orientation of the people being assessed. This says nothing about the conclusions of that assessment - only that someone's sexual orientation is not a reason to refuse to perform a full and fair assessment.

The bit in between is primarily an exercise in matching up children and parents performed by a combination of social workers and psychologists and other professionals, all governed by their respective codes of professional conduct.

Which part of that do you consider unreasonable, exactly?

Reply 1107

Original post by chefdave

Right, so instead of allowing professionals and parents make the decision autonomously you'd prefer it if the state forced their hand and made them accept gay couples even if it was against their wishes?

This is precisely the reason why I oppose the gay rights lobby, not because they want equal rights, but because they want to use the power of the state to force everyone else to dance to their tune. I'm glad we finally got to the heart of the matter.

Well I can't find any official information but one source says this:

Will I be able to choose the family my child is placed with?
You can say what sort of family you would like your child to be placed with. For example, you can ask that your child be placed with a family where there are other children. You can also ask that your child is brought up in a certain religion or culture. The best interests of the child are always put first, but your wishes will be taken into account.

Presumably they can have some sort of say...

But they do want equal rights. When it comes to potentially adopting children, they just don't think their sexuality should be taken into account. And as it actually doesn't make a difference, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Reply 1108

Original post by minimarshmallow

Well I can't find any official information but one source says this:

Presumably they can have some sort of say...

But they do want equal rights. When it comes to potentially adopting children, they just don't think their sexuality should be taken into account. And as it actually doesn't make a difference, I don't see anything wrong with that.

They all say that. Once the child enters the system, the biological parents do not have absolute control of the outcome.

My ex and I looked at adopting, must be four or five years ago now. That's what they all said then.

Reply 1109

Original post by chefdave

Eh? What's murder got to do with the price of fish?

If you're correct (and you may well be given the mess the country is in) the law goes well beyond it's remit by forcing people to consider gay couples as suitable adoptive parents. Gays don't have a right to other people's children. From a moral perspective why is that so difficult to understand?

I was making a point that the law goes against people's opinions a lot.

And yes, gay people should be considered as suitable adoptive parents, there is nothing inherent in their sexuality that would make them bad parents. It doesn't mean that gay people would get first preference, just that they would be considered the same as straight people.
Nobody has a right to adopt a child, but if they pass the screening and are deemed to be fit potential parents, why does it matter that they are gay - IT WON'T MAKE THEM WORSE PARENTS!

Reply 1110

Original post by mmmpie

Yeah, expecting people to treat others fairly is so mean.

The only depressing part is that we have to have not just one but a whole bunch of laws to make that happen. Seriously, is it that much to ask?

Ok, so a couple (for whatever reason) are forced into an unfortunate position where they have to give up their baby for adoption, why is it "fair" for a gay couple to then use the power of state to compel the parents to consider them suitable candidates?

I fail to see how forcing people to do things at gunpoint (which is what the law really is) counts as fairness. Please explain.

Reply 1111

Original post by chefdave

Ok, so a couple (for whatever reason) are forced into an unfortunate position where they have to give up their baby for adoption, why is it "fair" for a gay couple to then use the power of state to compel the parents to consider them suitable candidates?

I fail to see how forcing people to do things at gunpoint (which is what the law really is) counts as fairness. Please explain.

Because if they are potential good parents wanting to adopt, why shouldn't they be considered? They're not going to be automatically chosen over a straight couple, but they are potential suitable candidates, so why not?

Reply 1112

Original post by chefdave

Ok, so a couple (for whatever reason) are forced into an unfortunate position where they have to give up their baby for adoption, why is it "fair" for a gay couple to then use the power of state to compel the parents to consider them suitable candidates?

I fail to see how forcing people to do things at gunpoint (which is what the law really is) counts as fairness. Please explain.

How would it be fair for the gay couple not to be considered on the same terms as everybody else?

I'd much rather we didn't have to compel people to act like decent, rational human beings towards each other. Unfortunately, trusting people to behave that way is very hit and miss. Hopefully that won't be the case forever.

Reply 1113

Original post by minimarshmallow

I was making a point that the law goes against people's opinions a lot.

And yes, gay people should be considered as suitable adoptive parents, there is nothing inherent in their sexuality that would make them bad parents. It doesn't mean that gay people would get first preference, just that they would be considered the same as straight people.
Nobody has a right to adopt a child, but if they pass the screening and are deemed to be fit potential parents, why does it matter that they are gay - IT WON'T MAKE THEM WORSE PARENTS!

No, if parents decide that gay couples are unsuitable then by definition they've already failed the screening. This is about preferences and personal choice. If some people feel comfetable with the idea of gay adoption then fine, but forcing it upon them against their will does nothing to advance the gay political cause. I ALWAYS question the moral compass of someone who appeals to the supremacy of the law. The law means force. And force if used unnecessarily is unjust.

Reply 1114

Original post by chefdave

No, if parents decide that gay couples are unsuitable then by definition they've already failed the screening. This is about preferences and personal choice. If some people feel comfetable with the idea of gay adoption then fine, but forcing it upon them against their will does nothing to advance the gay political cause. I ALWAYS question the moral compass of someone who appeals to the supremacy of the law. The law means force. And force if used unnecessarily is unjust.

This has nothing to do with preferences and personal choice. What planet are you on?

Reply 1115

blu tack

9

Original post by chefdave

No, if parents decide that gay couples are unsuitable then by definition they've already failed the screening. This is about preferences and personal choice. If some people feel comfetable with the idea of gay adoption then fine, but forcing it upon them against their will does nothing to advance the gay political cause. I ALWAYS question the moral compass of someone who appeals to the supremacy of the law. The law means force. And force if used unnecessarily is unjust.

Is it actually the case that people giving up their babies are forced to give them to gay couples against their wishes? Has this ever happened?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1116

Original post by minimarshmallow

Because if they are potential good parents wanting to adopt, why shouldn't they be considered? They're not going to be automatically chosen over a straight couple, but they are potential suitable candidates, so why not?

They don't have a right to be considered. It's an unworkable silly liberal ideal. If you're offering a service, any service, it could be cleaning, cooking, whatever, you cannot force people to "consider" your services. They're perfectly entitled to slam the door in your face. Yes this is rude but the flipside of this arrangement is to force your way into their lives and homes with the backing of the state because you have a "right" not to be discriminated against. (i.e you've removed their right to say "no thanks")

It's silly unworkable nonsense. Please get real.

Reply 1117

Jester94

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.

It has everything to do with homophobia.

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?

Yes, I would be perfectly fine with that.

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.

I do love the way you twist things to suit yourself. A computer is not natural, no matter how you try and spin it; neither is the wheel. What IS natural is the human initiative and determination to solve problems which led to people discovering everything. That is not the same thing.

Also, fire exists without humans, we didn't create it, merely learnt how to cause it.

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?

I would pick the one that doesn't discriminate.

Your bigotry disgusts me.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1118

Original post by mmmpie

This has nothing to do with preferences and personal choice. What planet are you on?

It's ALL to do with preferences and personal choice. Some people may opt for a no gays policy and you'd use the violence of the state to prevent them from fulfilling their wishes.

The moment you mentioned the law you lost all credibility. It's clear now that you have no time for individual preferences.

Reply 1119