Why are people against gay adoption?
The argument that the child would get picked on I think says more about society than the adoption itself.If someone goes through all the effort to adopt and are healthy and have the money to look after the child then why not let them adopt?Gay people are people just like us they also have desires to start families and have children.
I guess for some people it may be religious reasons
I don't really know.
I mean I get how you can make an argument that organizing societies around families that consist of a female and a male parent is optimal given the gender differences, and how the gender traits tend to ballance each other out well.
But, while you can make an average argument that society is better off orientated towards a certain direction, I don't see any way you can make a logical case for an individualistic argument. For example, there is no way you can ever conclude that all gay parents are worse then all straight parents, and you can absolutely not conclude that all gay parents are worse then all care-homes. So on an individual level, there is no justification for discriminating at all, given how in any individual circumstance, a gay couple could be much better parents then a straight couple, and in the vast vast majority of circumstances a gay couple are vastly superior to the child having no family at all.
So for me, my guess is that its an opinion held by people who can't separate average/societal/generalized conceptions, with individual/singular, conceptions. They rationalize that societal on average its better to have men+woman parents on the hole.. but then extrapolate that into the individual by saying that 'therefore no gay couples should adopt'. Its the extrapolation from the societal to the individual that is their mistake, and the reason they reach the wrong conclusion.
I mean I get how you can make an argument that organizing societies around families that consist of a female and a male parent is optimal given the gender differences, and how the gender traits tend to ballance each other out well.
But, while you can make an average argument that society is better off orientated towards a certain direction, I don't see any way you can make a logical case for an individualistic argument. For example, there is no way you can ever conclude that all gay parents are worse then all straight parents, and you can absolutely not conclude that all gay parents are worse then all care-homes. So on an individual level, there is no justification for discriminating at all, given how in any individual circumstance, a gay couple could be much better parents then a straight couple, and in the vast vast majority of circumstances a gay couple are vastly superior to the child having no family at all.
So for me, my guess is that its an opinion held by people who can't separate average/societal/generalized conceptions, with individual/singular, conceptions. They rationalize that societal on average its better to have men+woman parents on the hole.. but then extrapolate that into the individual by saying that 'therefore no gay couples should adopt'. Its the extrapolation from the societal to the individual that is their mistake, and the reason they reach the wrong conclusion.
Because they're homophobic.
Generally it is homophobic undercurrents.
statistically, kids do better in families where a mom and dad is present. this may not always be the cases, but an avg. there are many factors that one may consider to identify how a child may actually develop and progress in a family. however, some groups recognize these statistics as cause to support family's that have a mom and dad. therefore, couples that are not married, single individuals, and homosexual couples have more difficult time adopting kids in comparison to heterosexual married couples.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
statistically, kids do better in families where a mom and dad is present. this may not always be the cases, but an avg. there are many factors that one may consider to identify how a child may actually develop and progress in a family. however, some groups recognize these statistics as cause to support family's that have a mom and dad. therefore, couples that are not married, single individuals, and homosexual couples have more difficult time adopting kids in comparison to heterosexual married couples.
I think using such out dated ideas is not good for the future of society I know plenty of people who have both parents and do drugs and dropped out of school and I know people who have single parents and do that.The point is you can't put everyone in the same bag.
Original post by Anonymous1502
The argument that the child would get picked on I think says more about society than the adoption itself.If someone goes through all the effort to adopt and are healthy and have the money to look after the child then why not let them adopt?Gay people are people just like us they also have desires to start families and have children.
It is still a valid argument regardless...
Original post by black tea
It is still a valid argument regardless...
It's not though.Its just pandering to bullies.If a white child got adopted by black parents and was subsequently bullied for it,would we seriously consider banning black people from adopting?
Original post by 123543
Genuine question - those that are opposed to homosexual adoption - are you opposed to heterosexual adoption? Is it more to do with sexuality rather than the concept of adoption itself?
Of course it is.
Original post by AJ126
It's not though.Its just pandering to bullies.If a white child got adopted by black parents and was subsequently bullied for it,would we seriously consider banning black people from adopting?
I am not suggesting we ban adoption, I am simply saying that the child will be picked on. If I was in that situation personally, it would stop me from adopting - putting a child through a life of being picked is not worth it just so I can experience parenthood.
Original post by black tea
I am not suggesting we ban adoption, I am simply saying that the child will be picked on. If I was in that situation personally, it would stop me from adopting - putting a child through a life of being picked is not worth it just so I can experience parenthood.
Ok say you don't adopt.The child then gets adopted by a straight couple.He goes to school and gets bullied anyway due to being: short sighted; fat; ginger; spotty; black or literally any other reason.There is literally no way at all to guarantee a child is not going to be bullied.If it's not having gay parents then it will be something else.So really it doesn't matter what you do.
Original post by AJ126
Ok say you don't adopt.The child then gets adopted by a straight couple.He goes to school and gets bullied anyway due to being: short sighted; fat; ginger; spotty; black or literally any other reason.There is literally no way at all to guarantee a child is not going to be bullied.If it's not having gay parents then it will be something else.So really it doesn't matter what you do.
It matters for my own conscience.
Original post by black tea
It matters for my own conscience.
Funny how people's consciences always seems to make an exception for gay people.
Original post by AJ126
Funny how people's consciences always seems to make an exception for gay people.
What have gay people got to do with me not wanting a child to be bullied through the choices I make?
Original post by Anonymous1502
I think using such out dated ideas is not good for the future of society I know plenty of people who have both parents and do drugs and dropped out of school and I know people who have single parents and do that.The point is you can't put everyone in the same bag.
I know plenty of people with single mom who have done great in their life. I knew kids in school who had horrible experiences. having two binary parents does not guarantee an advantage or blissful childhood. that's not what they stats say. but people can look at it to consider probability. considering statistics as means to identify correlations and even causation. this doesn't need to be pushed to side.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
