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
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
But there aren't many gays around, nevermind one's that want children.
The mixed race thing was a taboo and there's quite a few now, it's not the same with gays.
True, hence I didn't make a good argument. Although mixed-race parents and same-sex parents are very different. Mixed-race parents can provide exactly the same upbringing as parents of the same race. Race isn't relevant, it's not worth mentioning. I don't think it has any affect on upbringing. Those against mixed-race parents were simply put being racist. I don't think opposing same-sex couples adopting is homophobic.
Whether the parents are gay or not is probably irrelevent when they are being "educated" in human zoos.
Kids learn most in their immediate infancy and from the house itself.
not really, we're sayings its unsuitable for adoption
my mums brought me up great, how she always has and always will be my mum - im not adopted
Yes you did. "You need the balance of a mother and a father IMHO."
What an absurd argument. By that argument, children of single parent families will have problems with the opposite sex and children with both a mother and a father won't. Patently not true is it?
Your argument amounts to nothing more than saying that the nuclear family is normal. Which, as we have seen, is not true.
I see a lot of people saying this is the case but not one scrap of evidence yet.
most of us are saying IMO
ideally a mother and father figure helps in viewing the world, i had my mum and her father(my granddad) which helped immensely
as i was growing up there was things i felt i should ask my grandad about, and things i asked my mum about
the adoption process is and should be very selective, however the bureaucracy should be removed from it as much as possible without affecting the selectivity
NOONE has a right to have a child, its a privilege - why i'm against IVF for unmarried and lesbian couples
I'm more concerned that me and my brother are fairly well balanced members of society despite that lack of parental input. I don't think the dual parent thing is important.
Yes and what's that got to do with being the biological parent
It's not necessary or overly important but ideal That's the argument I'm trying to make.
I don't think you can make that argument. What's it based on?
Read the thread. I made my argument, others made theirs.
There are no scientific studies that say either way.
Which is why I said "implied".
I agree that children do need input from both sexes as they grow up, however this influence does not need to come exclusiely from parents...gay couples have family and friends of the opposite sex as well. At the end of the day the most important factors in bringing a child up are caring, nurturing, protecting and educating...and if social services feel that a gay couple can provide this, then why should they be discriminated against?
Ideal situaions are all relative... :yes:
Yeah, but it must be based on something if you've come out with the opinion?
Actually, I've just realised that out of my closest 10 friends, 6 of them come from single parent homes. All of them are well-rounded individuals.
well kermit i think that gay people should be allowed to adopt they are no diffrent to any one else and they will still love the chid the same
What makes you think married couples make better parents than unmarried ones? Or same-sex ones for that matter?
If I had a choice between a stable life with one loving single parent (or two same-sex parents) or a life with a depressed & stressed mum and dad who have only stayed together "for the sake of the children" but led a miserable and unhappy life, I know which one I'd choose.
Each case should be judged individually. The number of parents around and their gender is irrelevant. End of.
I so far have no read anything valid (eg, reports by child psychologists, experiements ect apart from Bowlby... But hey, everybody knows that women should stay at home and that a male single parent can't do the job :yeees: ) to suggest that children need a mother and a father. Monogomy and the nuclear family are something we're socialised in to, not a necessity (in my opinion).
tbh on the whole im against IVF as i dont think we need to have more people being born
im saying generally in my opinion that a child brought up under a married heterosexual couple gets far more opportunities for family time compared to a lone parent, and a more varied upbringing as a whole if they're heterosexual
there's no right to have a child thats yours
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
You could argue this point... But as you've said, it doesn't entitle a person to their own genes being passed down.
having a family doesn't equal having kids though
Not really.
But can anyone sit there and say that a single-parent family is ideal? Of course they can't. Least of all single parents. Being a single parent doesn't make you a bad parent, to say so is ridiculous. 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?
Since we're talking about adoption- where people are vetted- any arguments about "but what about wife beaters" are null and void. Especially as homosexual people are just as capable of domestic violence.
I certainly aren't saying that gay people should have their children taken from them if they already have them, but if we are in a position to choose who gets adopted children- and we are- gay people should not be allowed to. Children need a mother and a father, as well as extended family, and two mummies or two daddies simply does not cut the mustard. An extended family does not replace having a mother and a father.
Homosexual parenting is not ideal. It is nothing about how good the actual people are, but them being homosexual prevents them giving their children an ideal background. It has nothing to do with homophobia, much as Tatchell et al love to claim.
With adoption we are in a position to choose an ideal. I think people are forgetting that.
Of course they can't. Because these things must be judged on a case by case basis.
Some married couples make good families- some don't. Same as all the other alternatives.
And how many children would have preferred daddy (or mummy) to piss off rather than make the whole family endure years of unhappiness?
And no, I'm not talking about spouse-beating or abuse of any kind. A happy one parent home is infinitely more preferable than an unhappy two-parent household.
What makes you say so? How do you know that, exactly?
What's 'ideal' anyway? Please define it.
Seeing as most people, straight or gay, married or unmarried, together or alone, couldn't give children an 'ideal' background, it would seem that very few people who have adopted children until now should have been allowed to.