Why should gays not be allowed to adopt?

[R1Geezer]

The Sherman asked me the above in another thread, I thought it should be a general discussion as a reasonable Geezer I thought I'd create a separate thread. I give my own reasons here: 1. 2 dads/mums = a Nuclear bullying weapon = damged child. 2. Children need 2 parents 1 of each. 3. It is artificial and not what biology intended. 4. Left to their own devices same sex couples can not reproduce, hence are not geared up for bringing up children. 5. Children should not be induced into thinking that having 2 dads/mums is the norm. OK I accept that there are a lot of children whose normal upbringing leaves a lot to be desired, we are not talking about those. I fully accept that homosexuals are part of society and should live comfortable fulfilling lives but I will never accept that they should be any where near children. Oh and before you ask, no I'm not a Muslim.

[naomi24]

Geezer, I will never accept that they should be any where near children.

May I ask why? That's a very sweeping statement.

[Infomaniac]

I think too much emphasis is placed on the "right" of different sorts of people to adopt children, and not enough on the rights of the children to be cared for in a stable, I repeat, stable, family unit.

[R1Geezer]

I mean in the upbringing and devlopment of children. Not proximity in the literal sense.

[naomi24]

Oh, I see. Thanks for answering that.

[mightyWBA]

No

[Velvetee]

What with all the stories over the years where children are murdered or abused at the hands of their natural parent(s), the main thing is, a child is raised by loving, caring parents. I don't think two men raising a child together is a necessary problem.

There are so many children in the care system, who need to be part of a family unit. I'm sure they won't care the sex of their adoptive parents as long as they are happy and loved.

[whifffey]

Your opinion is of no importance, unless it is strongly pro-gay. It has become de rigeur that homosexual - (yes homo sexual, this involves such tasteful activities as anal intercourse between men) - "parents" should be allowed to adopt young and vulnerable kids, indeed, positive discrimination is such that it won't be long before gays (homosexuals) are preferred parents. Blacks are already preferred, even though very few offer themselves for adoption because it is definitely not ok to lodge a black child with white parents (WHY? - oh it is a cultural identity thing).

Britain is a very sorry place today.

There was a good answer in the Guardian today - the preferred allocation of children to gay (homo sexual) couples is indeed a "social experiment"

With kids' lives.

[Oneeyedvic]

1. 2 dads/mums = a Nuclear bullying weapon = damged child
So presumably disabled children should be put down on birth?

[sfieldy]

Gays are and should be allowed to adopt each case is considered on its own merits and rigorous pre adoption matching checks are carried out. If there were more heterosexual couples willing to take on challenging children the need would not be so great.

[barry1010]

Lots and lots of children have been successfully raised in non-traditional families.
'Granny reared' was a common expression years ago, when dad was either nowhere to be seen or not known, was away at war or had died in the war. Mother had to work or skivvy to bring the money in.
Lots of 'sisters' shared a house raising the children. No, they weren't sisters but had a very close relationship. The fact they had different surnames was easily explained by 'widowhood' even though they were both spinsters of the parish.
An adult that take a genuine loving interest in the welfare of the child is what is needed, a parent that can his or her backside off the couch and eyes away from the tv for more than 5 minutes. The sex of those doing the parenting, and their sexual preferences, is really irrelevant.

[Kromovaracun]

1. 2 dads/mums = a Nuclear bullying weapon = damged child.

Children get bullied for an awful lot of things. What colour their hair is, what clothes they wear, where they're from, how good they are at things, or even just no reason at all.

Do all children who are bullied through no fault of their own end up damaged?

2. Children need 2 parents 1 of each.

So presumably single parents should be dispossessed of their children?

What is this based on? Some kind of gender-roles idea?

3. It is artificial and not what biology intended.

Depends what you define as 'natural'. You seem to have confused it with 'common'. There's certainly evidence indicating that homosexuality is biological in nature (though nobody's sure in exactly what way).

In either case, having feelings for another person is certainly natural, and isn't something you can control.

4. Left to their own devices same sex couples can not reproduce, hence are not geared up for bringing up children.

Neither can infertile heterosexual couples. Should they be barred from adoption? Also, they're not left to their own devices, so the point's kind of irrelevant.

5. Children should not be induced into thinking that having 2 dads/mums is the norm.

Have you ever spoken to anyone who grew up raised by a same-sex couple? In my experience, they're not usually under this impression at all. For a same-sex couple, explaining this often appears to be part of what raising the child entails.

[jackthehat]

1. Only if they are in close proximity to children who have been told that being gay is abberant.............You may think that you have a laissez-faire attitude to gay people but negative references you utter will be picked up on by your children and regurgitated in the playground.
2. Children need love. Single parents can provide sufficient love. Having 2 adults supervising your development helps provide balance of viewpoints, etc. but is not essential.
3 & 4. Yes 'left to their own devices' gay couples can't reproduce, I think anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of biology would agree........but luckily this is offset by the number of drunken and ******** 'hetties' who can procreate by spending 3 or 4 minutes pressed up against a wall round the back of a pub or nightclub......leading to a surfeit of children available for fostering/adoption.
5. Children should not be induced into thinking that having 2 dads/mums is anything of which to be ashamed..........because they are children ffs!

Perhaps you would like to spend some time chatting with my son ?

You have always been unable to explain exactly why you believe gays should be left nowhere near children.

[R1Geezer]

Oneeyedvic. Nice leap of illogic, you can choose not to create the Gay bullying weapon. This is not a general bullying argument.

Kromovarucun, infertile normal couples are ideal for adoption, as usual you try and compare this with Gay couples on the basis they cannot reproduce, yes that's true for the actual case not for the general state of affairs as with gay couples.

Sfieldy: The adoption agencies hate giving children to normal people, they trump up all sorts of reasons not to, the slightest excuse is used, I have rasied this on here before, there is no shortage of wanna be adopters.

Jack, I have explained before and indeed above I'm talking about it terms of parenting etc

[Oneeyedvic]

Oneeyedvic. Nice leap of illogic, you can choose not to create the Gay bullying weapon. This is not a general bullying argument.

Hey - it was your number one reason that gays should not be allowed to adopt!

The adoption agencies hate giving children to normal people, they trump up all sorts of reasons not to, the slightest excuse is used, I have rasied this on here before, there is no shortage of wanna be adopters.

Do you have any proof of these, or are these just more ramblings of the deluded? My wife has two adopted children from 30 and 27 years ago and I can assure you that it has never been easy to adopt children - it took her over 5 years.

You should also remember that most 'wanna be adopters' only want new born babies - so if you want to adopt and don't want a new born, you can 'jump' the list

[cymruambyth1]

I grew up having to go through two divorces, which wasnt great. My mum spent a lot of time as a single mum, working all the hours just to pay the bills. I am now way more mature than other people my age (im 24) and couldnt wait to move out of home. My brothers have all moved out aswell.

I would've far rather have two parents than one, and whether that be two mums, two dads or one of each I wouldnt have minded. But bullying does happen, but the Country is getting more use to gay couples and eventually I really dont think it would be that much of an issue.

[R1Geezer]

yes vic it was the 1st reason not the number 1, the point is that it is avoidable, disabled kids cannot be undisabled.

No delusions, here is a Q fom a few weeks back ilustrating what I mean
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question68 9919.html

[Kromovaracun]

infertile normal couples are ideal for adoption, as usual you try and compare this with Gay couples on the basis they cannot reproduce, yes that's true for the actual case not for the general state of affairs as with gay couples.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean that because infertile couples have the organs 'necessary' (albeit dysfunctional) to reproduce, they should be able to adopt, while gay parents shouldn't because they don't?

If so, that's rather a silly argument. The state of one's reproductive organs is quite a separate issue to how loving or supportive a parent you can be. I'm astonished you'd think otherwise.

Also, if you decided to ban gay adoption on the above grounds, then you would essentially be saying to gay parents 'You can't adopt simply because you are a same-sex couple' rather than making any attempt to assess parenthood (as opposed to your other arguments - which kind of attempt to do so). That is frankly repugnant.

[R1Geezer]

By Jove, I think he's got it, Yes Kromo that's exactly what I'm saying. The ideal family unit is a Man + Woman couple and if they choose one or more children. Hopefully they are married but in these enlightened times I accept they may not be.

Why do you find that so surprising? The state of the organs is irelevant, hopefully the normal couple in question can produce their own child but if not they can adopt.

No I'm not religious I'm atheist.

[jackthehat]

But any one partner of a gay couple has the requisite organs to fulfill their biological role............
Therefore, If I have a womb but my partner cannot impregnate me, why can I not adopt a child and give it a loving home......... and, naturally, the male scenario holds, too.............

It would be an unfortunate happenstance if both heterosexual partners in a couple were found to be infertile.......

[naomi24]

'You can't adopt simply because you are a same-sex couple'

That's the real answer, Krom. It's all about what people do in bed.

Are you really thinking of the child, Geezer? Surely rather than commit a child to various foster homes, shoving it from pillar to post, or abandoning it to a children's home until it's 17 when it then faces the world alone in some bedsit somewhere, it's preferable for it to be part of a family unit and raised by two people who will love it? Doesn't that make more sense? Principles are fine, but they are not always practical, and nor are they always sensible.