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.
Options
Unmarried and same-sex couples can now adopt
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4568234.stm
Great news as far as I'm concerned.
But don't let me get in the way of the backlash... Off you go!
Great news as far as I'm concerned.
But don't let me get in the way of the backlash... Off you go!
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
>shiver< :nervous:
And I thing there's stats that show a huge percentage of the men in prison were raised in government care facilities - so the more that can be done to provide kids with a stable home the better.
don't know why, i just think a child is ideally bought up by a mother and father, husband and wife figure - when the child is concieved naturally, that's okay since well they had it they can bring it up, but children who need to be adopted in most cases will be adopted by near strangers so we need these checks - an exemption should exist so if a child's mother/fahter dies they can be adopted by their closest family member for example
btw i was bought up by my mum only, however she had me and wanted to bring me up alone (i'm a lovechild )
Gay people should not.
Should ginger people be allowed to adopt?
Should ugly people be allowed to adopt?
Should mix-race couples be allowed to adopt?
Why should gay people not be allowed?
I remember there was a big fuss about whether it being right for gay couples to adopt, personally I think there should be both a mother and father present in the upbringing of a child. Not sure if the child could psychological adapt to the environment of same sex parents and there's also the possibility of them being bullied in school because of it.
Yes, of course they should.
Like it or not, gay people cannot provide the correct setting in a home in which to raise children. Children need a mother and they need a father- not two mummies and not two daddies. For this very reason single people should not be allowed to adopt either.
And by the way the idea of a 'nuclear family' with two parents and two kids was a warped victorian ideal. How many families are actually like that. I have two step parents a brother, half sister, step brother and step sister and would still say that I was a well rounded individual. The 'conventional family' is a little bit of a myth I think.
good point. The nuclear family is a very recent invention so to claim it as "natural" or "correct" in any way is absurd.
How about mothers and fathers who are prone to arguments?
How about mothers and fathers who don't earn enough money to give their children the best in life (i.e. private education, private health, a house with garden, regular holidays)?
If you are suggesting that only the very best possible situation is acceptable when it comes to adopting children, then I am afraid you cannot just draw the line at same-sex couples and single parents. Countless straight couples would be less than perfect too. In fact, many of them would be far less suitable than many same-sex couples or single parents.
It's all of us or nobody.
Biology and psychology.
As for the rest of your argument, we're talking about adoption. Only decent people can adopt, yes? It's vetted so only the best can- and raising children in a homosexual home is a long way from ideal.
Just one thing- are you saying gay people never beat each other, and lesbians are never poor?
Evidence?
As it goes actually, I do think children need both a male and a female influence when growing up. However, how adoption by a homosexual couple precludes this, I'm not sure. Gay people have friends and relatives of the opposite gender last time I checked. It may not be an ideal situation, but lifes not ideal. Whats better? No adoptive parents? Or a homosexual couple who love their adopted child? Its a no brainer really.
What's natural is that a man inseminates a women, therefore the structure of a family is male and female as the parents, there is no historical evidence of same sex parents on a large scale. Just never happens. And the nuclear family is a throwback to 40's-50's America ideology IMO, there never was a nuclear family and never will be, it was an ideal, there's always been families though and they've always had different sex parents. To change this so suddenly might be damaging.
Your claim that there have always been "different sex parents" just doesn't stand up I'm afraid. The most "natural" family structure would be the extended family, where children are the responsibility of not just (or not at all) the biological parents, but the responsibility of the extended family and wider community.
Well, personally I'd call that a "clan" but you can call it a family all you want. And in today's society, the extended family is basically non-existent, children live with their parents, their granny and grandad might live down the road but they don't have a day-to-day interaction with them.
Yes. So? You're not suggesting gay people are not decent are you?
Actually that's not true at all. It's vetted so suitable people adopt. Not 'the best'. Suitable.
If it were only 'the best' then 90%+ of straight people who have up to date granted adoptions would have not got them. Only a few people in this world are 'the best'.
Incidentally, your claim that that children raised in a homosexual home are in a less than ideal situation is completely subjective.
Not at all. I'm saying adoption should be granted on a case by case basis, not on blanket (and completely wrong) assumptions based on gender.
Tomayto, tomato. The point is that the "family" is a relatively recent construct.
Yes. Your point is?
Is that a child growing up (especially in their early) spending the majority of their time with same sex parents might be damaging to the childs ability to grow up and how they view the world when they're older. You need the balance of a mother and a father IMHO.
I've barely seen my dad in the last 20 years. What kind of psychological problems can I expect?
Acient Spartan society didn't have the concept of being brought up by parents at all. All children were brought up in common...
Yes, a balance of male and female is more desirable. Why do they have to be the biological parents?
Who said they'd have to be biological? I just don't see where a child is going to get the balance in day to day life. Are the parents going to have to hire a male or female nanny.
And I agree that single parents might have similar problems but the probability is is that single parents will have the odd boyfriend/girlfriend from now and again.
You did (or at least you heavily implied it).
So you think that gay people don't have relatives or friends of the opposite sex?
I don't think I even implied it.
They do but the child bonds with those who brought them up. Who they familiarize themselves with the most. Having close bonds with two males or two females might mean future distrust with people of the opposite sex of their parents.
That's speculation of the wild kind.
Speaking as a sample section of one, it's never been a problem.
I don’t agree with same-sex couples being allowed to adopt. I know prejudice isn’t a sufficient reason but the fact is a kid with two dads or two mums is very likely to get bullied harshly. And I think a child with two same-sex parents would feel very left out given that it’s not the norm, it’s a pretty unusual upbringing, pyschologically I'm not convinced it'll do a lot of good for the child. A child should where possible be brought up by a mum and a dad, single-parent families occur because of circumstances such as divorce, bereavement - they're not brought about intentionally in most cases and so therefore while not the ideal they're acceptable. Same-sex parents are not the ideal and since same-sex parents would only become same-sex parents through deliberate means - and that they're not the ideal makes it unacceptable. If that makes any sense..