If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry and adopte children?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Why are gays denied civil rights in this instance? A child is a better off within a loving environment.
It is not just that someone be denied the right to legally cement their relationship unlike a heterosexual couple.
It is not just that someone be denied the right to legally cement their relationship unlike a heterosexual couple.
0
Comments
but there are so many issues that discriminate against homosexual men (and i do mean men, most do not apply to women), this is only 1 on the list....
Yes.
The question is more, why shouldn't they...
A child brought up in a loving environment will have a good upbringing regardless of the sex of the adoptive parents. Most of those who oppose homosexuals adopting believe the child is likely to be abused in their care. Which is absolutely ridiculous.
I hope the government will invoke the Parliament Act on this one.
I agree. Homosexuals are being denied this right because, in plain terms, the House or Lords are populated with ultra-right wing homophobic bigots who are completely out of tune with most of the nation, yet get to decide whether such bills are passed or not.
I don't think its about the morals they have, but about the morals they want to be seen to have.
Did you know the gay men are not allowed to give blood?
They don't actually say that, or course.. they say that you cannot if you are a man who has ever had any sexual intercourse with another man, whether protection was used or not.
And you cannot if you have had sex in the last year with any-one who is a man who has ever had any sexual intercourse with another man, whether protection was used or not.
There are more stupid rules about that. I'll bring in the form and write out the especailly ridiculas ones at some point.
Ive posted it before but heres my adoption preferences.
Hetero couple > homo couple > hetero/homo single > govt care home.
Cokephreak...I should damn well hope so about the blood..Thats just common sense. Gay men are far more likely to be exposed to HIV than heterosexual men. If you dont agree with that then surely you couldnt object to stopping fresh immigrants from south africa from giving blood either.
Is all about the risks associated with HIV, and no amount of politcal correctness will hide the fact that these groups are most at risk from this.
It would be a whole lot worse if you went in for a tonsil operation and came out with AIDS, just because huge precautions hadn't been taken by the blood service.
Be warned it won't be long before CJD becomes an issue either...
NB I can understand the frustration with the fact that "with protection" also counts tho'
you must not give blood iif you have ever received payment for sex with money or drugs
and
you must not give blood if you have ever , even a long time ago or only once, injected drugs.
and also if you've had a tatoo/piercing in last 12 months you can't either.
it ain't that discriminatory...
How do you know if that person used safe needles?
I had sex with a man 3.5 years ago (protected). Since then i have been tested 3 times for STD's and have come up clear each time, but becuase my girlfriend has had sex with me within the last year (thank god) she cannot give blood.
seriously, do you really think they don't test the donated samples anyway?
Besides, its not gay people that are higher risk, its people who have a lot of casual sex, and people that have anal sex that are high risk.
How about "if you have ever paid for recieved money for drugs". Thats on the sheet aswell ( i did say i'd bring it in. I may still)... Also if you have had sex within the last year with some-one that has ever paid for recieved money for drugs.
you must not give blood iif you have ever received payment for sex with money or drugs
and
you must not give blood if you have ever , even a long time ago or only once, injected drugs.
I once let a friend have a bit of hash for a £5... that obviously means my blood is impure (I'm glad some-one has the same sheet i got)
NB I can understand the frustration with the fact that "with protection" also counts tho'
Its not just anal sex, either... its worded to include oral, and i suppose manual manipulation... both of which are MUCH lower risk the hetrosexual intercouse.
The sheet doesn't say anything about using hash, does it? that's only as payment for sex.
Also, it does say that the tests don't always show if the blood's infected, so I gues sthat's why.
ok, i misread this line
must not give blood iif you have ever received payment for sex with money or drugs
Had all the words in place.. but read something different.
but gay men do have more anal sex than straight people. I mean, they need to make the risks as low as possible.
Some gay men do.
Some hetrosexual people have more sex than gay men.
Some gay people have sex with 1 partener and 1 partner alone throughout their lives.
Isn't that making generalisations about people based on their sexuality?
:mad: :mad: :mad:
I mean, it's not a generalisation like 'all gay men are camp' or 'all men like football'; it might be like 'men in general are more likely to masturbate than women.' Probably true, and not necessarily offensive if you don't masturbate that much yourself.
Keep the gay MINORITY happy by being politically correct. Keep the MAJORITY of EVERYBODY safe by screening people who have had increased exposure to HIV, AIDS e.t.c.
Personally, with things like this people in the minority who are complaining can go to hell.
i think that in an ideal place there shouldnt be any problem with this...
this is britain tho
theres bound to be people giving these guys hassle for it and youve got to think about the kid. Its almost definately going to have problems in school with bullying etcetera. Playgrounds arent exactly the most liberal places...
its only been around thirty years since being overtly homosexual was socially acceptable too, and im sure all of you still know at least a dozen people who are homophobic.
i reckon that sooner or later they should be able to adopt, but for the moment, no. For the kids sake
I have an adopted cousin on each side of my family. Totally different cases, different reasoning for adopting, different gender of kid, different birthplace, different country which they are living in now, different family situation etc. Basically the only common factor is that they are adopted.
In both cases their parents are hetero sexual.
But when hearing about the circumstances these kids come from, I wouldn't stand in the way of gay-couples adopting such children.
Preferably adoptive parents should be hetero, but this is not always the case. And denying a kid the chance to have a proper life, cause of it's adoptive parents sexual preferences is simply stupid.
A kid deserves the chance of a good future with gay parents, than being dead or with death as the only achievable goal, with no parents.
Bullying is a factor in the discussion, but it's a minor thing when counting up the pro and cons of gay-couples adopting a needing child.
Any child caught engaging in racist/homophobic bullying should be expelled, end of.
Also, I think someone said on Any Questions today that single gay people would be allowed to adopt but not couples, which seems completely twisted. Does anyone know if this is true?
And although it's true that school is a small part of someone's life, bullying can scar you forever.
Unless the meaning of the word changes, homosexuals can not marry. However, they can share a same sex relationship.
Though what amazes me is, when gay couples fight to get married in the church. I mean, why would you want to get married in a place which condemns you?
Though a lot of churchs (maybe by law as well), do perform marriages between gay couples.
Why would any one do that, unless its all about getting one's way.
We as a people will never get past that one...our we can turn Turk and do as the islamics with the 'extra' boys! (I think not)
However, ultimately children need homes...!
Diesel
88888888:eek2:
That is pretty simple...nothing there to 'hate' or get excited about.
However, why the gender challenged would think that the 'ture faith/church/ must conform to them instead of the other way around is confusing...guess they overlook the part about "...many will come saying I am the messiah but are not of the faith and are of the synagogue of satain!"
Knowing this...makes me wonder why anyone would put themselves to such grief by demanding the 'church' conform to them when they can just go start their own and not be bothered.
Having lived in an orphanage for two years when I was a small child I can only tell you that it is heartbreaking for homeless/parentless children to feel such abandonment! And that young children in such situations are not stupid...they know that it is 'Adam & Eve' and not "Adam & Steve' so the situation could be doubly cruel.
And...if there is absolutely NO other alternative...Adam & Steve is better than nobody.
Diesel
88888888
That's where part of the problem lies don't you think? Children shouldn't be taught about Adam and Eve (not as fact or guidance anyway) for they are fictional characters of a book of legends and superstitions.
No doubt many of those who oppose gay couples adopting were given a good comprehensive religious education from a very early age.
I really have looked at this adoption issue...can't get past the notion that gender challenged adoption is a last resort approach.
It doesn't diminish the fact that such people can be wonderful and talented folk, maybe even good parents...and who can tell until you try!
But our society doesn't accept it and probably won't unless some horrid war or disease wipes out all available options...again, a last resort approach.
Diesel
88888888:eek: