Unmarried and same-sex couples can now adopt

Former Member

As if to prove what I mean about forgetting what the point of adoption is.

An ideal is two parents- a mother and a father- who love each other and the child. They don't need to be married, but they do need to have a stable relationship.

If there isn't a mother and a father, there should be no adoption. Simple.

Former Member

With adoption we are in a position to choose an ideal. I think people are forgetting that.

No we're not. Its often not a choice between a hetrosexual couple and a homosexual couple, but between a homosexual couple and a kid being shunted around foster parents.

Now call me old fashioned, but given the choice between fostering and being brought up by a stable homosexual couple I'd suggest that in 90% of cases the kid is better with the homosexual couple.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

As if to prove what I mean about forgetting what the point of adoption is.

An ideal is two parents- a mother and a father- who love each other and the child. They don't need to be married, but they do need to have a stable relationship.

If there isn't a mother and a father, there should be no adoption. Simple.

So homosexuals don't have stable relationships? Is that what you're saying?

Former Member

I thought the ideal was a happy healthy child?

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

But can anyone sit there and say that a single-parent family is ideal?

But we're not talking about ideals here, we're talking adoption. That means that the child is already without a loving family, or even single parent.

In those cases the ideal is far from the state funded care homes system which condemns the child to an uncaring, unsupportive place to live.

But how many children would rather have preferred mummy and daddy to stay together in happiness? How many single parents would rather their partner had stayed?

And hopw many will accept the hand they are dealth a provide the best care that they can?

To me that is much more an ideal, or prference, than suggesting that they are less able to raise a child.

Especially when you consider the number of feckless parents where you have the "ideal" represented.

if we are in a position to choose who gets adopted children- and we are-

Only if we consider that the alternative - care homes - is equally valid as gay parents.

Is that what you believe?

Children need a mother and a father

They need stability, they need love, they need nuturing, feeding and a roiof over their heads...

It is nothing about how good the actual people are, but them being homosexual prevents them giving their children an ideal background.

But living in a care home does?

With adoption we are in a position to choose an ideal. I think people are forgetting that.

I think people are forgetting the alternatives here.

There aren't enough "ideal" families willing to adopt. Where else can these children go?

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

If there isn't a mother and a father, there should be no adoption. Simple.

Where do you think these children come from in the first place?

Not all are orphans... in fact very few are.

Former Member

The reality is that what's being discussed here isn't just a principal or an ideal. What is being discussed is the very real lives of many hundreds if not thousands of children currently living in care, especially those children who most people don't want to adopt (teenagers, children with a problematic history).

Reducing the possible pool of people who are able to adopt means that many children will spend longer in care that would otherwise be necessary - there is a shortage of adoptive parents. Any change in the law that increases that number is good news for those children living in care - who I'm sure would rather have a loving home than stay in care waiting for someone else's 'ideal'.

http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/homepage/socialcareandhealth/childrenandfamilies/adoptionandfostering/adoption/adoptforplymouth/adoptiveparentsneeded.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4414354.stm

Former Member

Fair enough if adoption is a problem- it isn't for young children normally, but it admittedly is for older children, who are more likely to be psychologically disturbed.

If the choice is between a gay family and a care home then I wouldn't say the child should be sent to the care home. It's a valid point, and one I hadn't really considered much. But gay parents should be at the bottom of the pile.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

As if to prove what I mean about forgetting what the point of adoption is.

An ideal is two parents- a mother and a father- who love each other and the child. They don't need to be married, but they do need to have a stable relationship.

If there isn't a mother and a father, there should be no adoption. Simple.

Do the number of children requiring adoption not outweigh the number of potential parents wanting to adopt?

If so, then there can be little argument against homosexual adoption.

If not, then your argument holds some weight.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Fair enough if adoption is a problem- it isn't for young children normally, but it admittedly is for older children, who are more likely to be psychologically disturbed.

If the choice is between a gay family and a care home then I wouldn't say the child should be sent to the care home. It's a valid point, and one I hadn't really considered much. But gay parents should be at the bottom of the pile.

ok but lets say you where gay and you where not allowed to adoped chids how would yo feel

Former Member

The feelings of the prospective adopter are irrelevant.

Children aren't a fashion accessory, and they're not a toy to be used to illustrate some bizarre notion of "equality".

I don't think gay people should be allowed to adopt. If there is no other choice then I would grudgingly allow them to, but only as a last resort. And it has nothing to do with homophobia.

Former Member

So what is it to do with?

Former Member

the thing about adoption these days is that it is all far from ideal.

20 or 30 years ago, if betty nice-and-normal got knocked up and couldn't keep the baby, for whatever reason, it's likely she would have given the baby up for adoption. then, along come mr and mrs. sweet-and-lovely-but-sadly-infertile, and give baby nice-and-normal a lovely new home. everyone's happy.

these days there are fewer and fewer bettys. if they can't keep the baby, they have an abortion. if there's a chance they can, they can look forward to single-parentness with an open, supportive attitude from society, help from the state and assistance with getting back to work.

there are also fewer and fewer sweet-and-lovelies. they've mostly gone off and had IVF, or used a surrogate, or donor sperm/egg to conceive.

what you do have, these days, are a whole bunch of needy kids, often a bit older with very troubled backgrounds, maybe orphaned, maybe abandoned, maybe taken off their parents. and then on the other hand you have not a great deal of couples willing to adopt them. it's all about supply and demand. too much supply. not enough demand.

maybe having two mums or parents with different surnames isn't ideal, but life isn't ideal, and IMO as long as they are able to care for them and raise them well, it's a hell of a lot better than being an unwanted kid in care.

Former Member

kaffrin wrote:

the thing about adoption these days is that it is all far from ideal.

20 or 30 years ago, if betty nice-and-normal got knocked up and couldn't keep the baby, for whatever reason, it's likely she would have given the baby up for adoption. then, along come mr and mrs. sweet-and-lovely-but-sadly-infertile, and give baby nice-and-normal a lovely new home. everyone's happy.

these days there are fewer and fewer bettys. if they can't keep the baby, they have an abortion. if there's a chance they can, they can look forward to single-parentness with an open, supportive attitude from society, help from the state and assistance with getting back to work.

there are also fewer and fewer sweet-and-lovelies. they've mostly gone off and had IVF, or used a surrogate, or donor sperm/egg to conceive.

what you do have, these days, are a whole bunch of needy kids, often a bit older with very troubled backgrounds, maybe orphaned, maybe abandoned, maybe taken off their parents. and then on the other hand you have not a great deal of couples willing to adopt them. it's all about supply and demand. too much supply. not enough demand.

maybe having two mums or parents with different surnames isn't ideal, but life isn't ideal, and IMO as long as they are able to care for them and raise them well, it's a hell of a lot better than being an unwanted kid in care.

truth.

Former Member

Hear hear Kaffrin, succinctly put. A lot of the responses are argueing that a two parent family with mother and father is the ideal. We are bombarded with this 'truth' from all angles in the media, at school etc. and many of us have now adopted it as our opinion seemingly without evidence. Where does this idea come from and how true is it?