Lesbian & Gay couples: Adopting Children

Leon08

Hey Everyone,

I would like to know people's opinion on the issue of Lesbian & Gay couples bringing up/adopting children.

It seems that this issue is rarely discussed, most are usually focused on the question of same-sex marriage.

I personally believe that it is wrong to deny L&G couples the right to have a family, and there are many L&G couples that would undoubtedly make excellent parents.

However, should the rights of the child not be taken into account, especially when they face an increased risk of bullying, harassment and intimidation in their later lives due the fact that they have two mothers or two fathers?

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

L

The_Minister

Rec > After Hours
or
Soc > Humanities
might get you are more balanced response.

Leon08

The_Minister wrote: »

Rec > After Hours
or
Soc > Humanities
might get you are more balanced response.

Cheers!

Any chance you could move the thread over?

L

The_Minister

I'm not the mod of this forum, but I've reported your post so it should be dealt with soon:).

EDIT: Congratulations btw, on trying to post in the appropriate forum. So many new users just plonk threads wherever.

peasant

Hmm interesting one.

I usually consider myself to be fairly liberal, non-judgemental, non-prejudiced, etc etc ...but a "right" to family for same sex partners always makes me wonder.

Does one really have a "right" to want something which nature can't give under any circumstances. Two people of the same sex can never make children so the initial reaction would be that they have no "right" to have them either.

Of course the issue gets immediatedly muddled, if one or both partners in a same sex relationship already have children from previous relationships. Nobody has the "right" to take these children away from their parent(s).

Either way, I'm not quite convinced that (no matter how good the parental skills of the two mothers/fathers are) it is an ideal situation for children to grow up in. Good male and female role models are important for children. So is the lack of bullying.

But then there are thousands of children that grow up in single parent families or in all sorts of hotch-potch relationships and they still manage to turn out alright while children from picture book families go off the track.

Difficult one, that.

AARRRGH

I think they should be allowed adopt, as it's better the child has two loving parents than no parents at all.

It's not an ideal situation though, and I think heterosexual parents should get priority over homosexual parents, simply because having a father and mother is better than two fathers or two mothers, in my opinion anyway.

oisindoyle

Leon08 wrote: »

Hey Everyone,

I would like to know people's opinion on the issue of Lesbian & Gay couples bringing up/adopting children.

It seems that this issue is rarely discussed, most are usually focused on the question of same-sex marriage.

I personally believe that it is wrong to deny L&G couples the right to have a family, and there are many L&G couples that would undoubtedly make excellent parents.

However, should the rights of the child not be taken into account, especially when they face an increased risk of bullying, harassment and intimidation in their later lives due the fact that they have two mothers or two fathers?

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

L

Yes i think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt .Whats wrong with 2 people of the same sex wanting to rear a child and bring him/her up in a loving home ,,,,,,answer ,,,,NOTHING.
As for your comment about the rights of the child ect ect ,when they face an increased risk of bullying ect ect ,,They only way a child would bully another child beacuse the child was brought up by 2 people of same sex,is from homophobic parents .A child who bullys wouldnt give a damn about same sex parents only their hear not too complementary comments from the prejuice parents

johnnyskeleton

Depends on the individual circumstances. They should not be absolutely prohibited, but there are arguments to suggest that, all things being equal, a mother role model & a father role model is preferable to two mother or two father role models.

I wonder how big an issue the being slagged in the schoolyard really is. To be honest, they are more likely to be slagged for being fat or skinny or short or tall or stupid or nerdy or whatever.

thetyreman

No,i dont think they should,they cant have there cake and eat it IMHO.

Its not natural///

and i know the above isnt very PC,but you did ask

shay_562

peasant wrote:

Does one really have a "right" to want something which nature can't give under any circumstances.

Oh, definitely not. That's why we don't allow infertile women to adopt. If nature didn't grant it to them, then they don't have a right to it, clearly. The same way that no one has rights to education unless 'nature' provides them with a primary school.

thetyreman wrote:

No,i dont think they should,they cant have there cake and eat it IMHO.

Yep, same way as women who marry infertile men shouldn't get to adopt kids. Greedy bitches. Let them marry a man with working sperm, dammit!

Meh. Don't really buy the "But the kids will be bullied!" argument. Kids always get picked on at some point in their school lives by someone else; it's part of growing up. If you're adopted by parents who are of a different race, or in a wheelchair, or just have something kinda mockable about them (weight, age, appearance) the other kids will say stupid things. Hell, there's no one who makes it through life without a "Yore ma!" joke or two. It's certainly not enough of a big deal to make it an immediate nixer to adopting kids.

There's quite possibly an argument to be made that, ceteris paribus, heterosexual couples should have priority over homosexual ones, but I'm not sure that the situation is ever completely equal between two different sets of potential adoptive parents. Furthermore, I've yet to hear the argument in favour of mother-and-father role models being presented particularly convincingly, and given that there's studies that claim to conclusively prove both side of the argument (more emotional problems Vs. no significant effect at all) it seems like there should be equal treatment of both types of couple where possible.

hot2def

its worth noting that most gay people have functioning genitals, which they may decide to use to make children.


shall we take the kids away from them?

Phototoxin

Does one really have a "right" to want something which nature can't give under any circumstances.
Oh, definitely not. That's why we don't allow infertile women to adopt. If nature didn't grant it to them, then they don't have a right to it, clearly. The same way that no one has rights to education unless 'nature' provides them with a primary school.

+1

I naturally cannot make a vital hormone so do I have no right to get it?

I think its better if there is a male and female influence on a child for their development but I'm sure that its possible for a gay couple to adopt and raise a child 'normally'

thetyreman

shay_562 wrote: »

Oh, definitely not. That's why we don't allow infertile women to adopt. If nature didn't grant it to them, then they don't have a right to it, clearly. The same way that no one has rights to education unless 'nature' provides them with a primary school.



Yep, same way as women who marry infertile men shouldn't get to adopt kids. Greedy bitches. Let them marry a man with working sperm, dammit!

Meh. Don't really buy the "But the kids will be bullied!" argument. Kids always get picked on at some point in their school lives by someone else; it's part of growing up. If you're adopted by parents who are of a different race, or in a wheelchair, or just have something kinda mockable about them (weight, age, appearance) the other kids will say stupid things. Hell, there's no one who makes it through life without a "Yore ma!" joke or two. It's certainly not enough of a big deal to make it an immediate nixer to adopting kids.

There's quite possibly an argument to be made that, ceteris paribus, heterosexual couples should have priority over homosexual ones, but I'm not sure that the situation is ever completely equal between two different sets of potential adoptive parents. Furthermore, I've yet to hear the argument in favour of mother-and-father role models being presented particularly convincingly, and given that there's studies that claim to conclusively prove both side of the argument (more emotional problems Vs. no significant effect at all) it seems like there should be equal treatment of both types of couple where possible.

Not the same at all,at all,at all, If you are going to make a comparision try and make it a valid one...

ChocolateSauce

Leon08 wrote: »

However, should the rights of the child not be taken into account, especially when they face an increased risk of bullying, harassment and intimidation in their later lives due the fact that they have two mothers or two fathers?

I take extreme issue with this kind of thinking. I don't know if you think this, but people who do are plain ignorant.

In what way are a child's rights being infringed on by having two gay parents? In what measure are the parents responsible for the homophobic bullying inflicted on their kids by ignorant others? That is the problem of the short-sighted F***ers who spend their time harassing and denigrating others, not of the children wo were raised in a stable loving family, or of the parents who look after their own.

And to reiterate what I've said in previous topics: There are mounds and mounds of empirical evidence which provides proof that children raised by gay couples do just as well, if not slightly better, than kids of straight couples. The evidence blatantly proves that it is the number of parents, and not their orientation, which is the major factor. People can have all the opinions they want, but they are not entitled to their own facts, and the facts are on the side of the gays.

peasant

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And to reiterate what I've said in previous topics: There are mounds and mounds of empirical evidence which provides proof that children raised by gay couples do just as well, if not slightly better, than kids of straight couples. The evidence blatantly proves that it is the number of parents, and not their orientation, which is the major factor. People can have all the opinions they want, but they are not entitled to their own facts, and the facts are on the side of the gays.

It could probably be argued though, that that has nothing to do with the parents being gay (i.e. being gay does not automatically make you a super parent) but with the fact that they have to go through a lot of hassle and resistance to be (allowed to be) able to raise kids and are therefore extremely commited and responsible people/parents.

Reflector

it's a natural cycle that gay couples now that they are more accepted and visible in society will want to raise children. It's a human need that most people get at some stage in their lives.
I feel that gay people should be allowed adopt if they are in a long term commited relationship. Any adoption body are quite rigorous and will do all the necessary checks. But I am gay so I suppose a little bias.

Aard

thetyreman wrote: »

No,i dont think they should,they cant have there cake and eat it IMHO.

Can you explain what you mean by that? What is "having their cake"? Is it that homosexuals are 'allowed' be a couple in the first place?

thetyreman

Aard wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by that? What is "having their cake"? Is it that homosexuals are 'allowed' be a couple in the first place?

No i have no problem with G/l being couples or married or whatever they want or need,because it dosnt effect me,you however are assumeing that i dont think they should be couples.

T hey can do what they want once as i said it dosnt effect me or any of my family,however i am a adult any i have a choice,where as a child up for adoption hasnt.I would hate to think that if god forbid something happened to me and my wife (as in be dead)that my kids would be allowed to be adopted to a gay married couple.

Aard

thetyreman wrote: »

I would hate to think that if god forbid something happened to me and my wife (as in be dead)that my kids would be allowed to be adopted to a gay married couple.

And why is that?


Is it that a same-sex couple would do an inferior job of child-rearing? Or perhaps that their homosexuality might rub off on the child?

Bottle_of_Smoke

oisindoyle wrote: »

They only way a child would bully another child beacuse the child was brought up by 2 people of same sex,is from homophobic parents .A child who bullys wouldnt give a damn about same sex parents only their hear not too complementary comments from the prejuice parents

Nah, bullys from any background will pick up on homosexual parents. Though kids who get bullied tend to get bullied because they're "bulliable" rather than any "bulliable" factor.

Hmmm. Homosexual adoption *seems* wrong to me but I have no rational, logical reason to object to it. So thumbs up I guess.

The guy

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Nah, bullys from any background will pick up on homosexual parents. Though kids who get bullied tend to get bullied because they're "bulliable" rather than any "bulliable" factor.

Hmmm. Homosexual adoption *seems* wrong to me but I have no rational, logical reason to object to it. So thumbs up I guess.

Many different people are now adopting kids, ideally Single parents should have a stable hetrosexual partner to look after the kids but I doubt that's going to happen so I think that homosexual parents would be fine despite it not being perfect.

stovelid

I personally have no problem with it. The primary concern is that a safe, loving home is provided, and the gender of the parents shouldn't really be an influence on this. The point about bullying is usually trotted out, but surely kids will give each other a hard time about anything; i'm not sure that potentially excellent adoptive homes should be overlooked because we're afraid of what kids might say in school.

The one thing I would say though - have said it before in threads like this - is that I think it's good for boys to have a positive male role model, especially if they are brought up, or go to school, in an area where crime or anti-social behaviour is a concern. Of course, that could just as easily be an uncle, grandfather or any close member of an extended family.

Leon08

@stovelid: I agree with your points, give me a sec to clarify something to everyone.

Just to clarify a few points in my OP. I mentioned the possibility of bullying in later life as an example, there are many other factors which need to be taken into account.

For example, as some of you have mentioned, there is a general consensus that two distinct role models within the family i.e. the father and the mother, ensure that children usually become more rounded individuals.

Just like there are many arguments that having brothers and sisters as opposed to being an only child will affect your life experience, outlooks and personality etc, there are valid arguments that suggests that having two fathers or two mothers will result in you become a distinctly different individual than if you had a mother and a father.

At the end of the day, like stovelid mentioned:

The primary concern is that a safe, loving home is provided.

And there is no doubt that most gay or lesbians couples are just as capable of providing this kind of environment as most heterosexual couples.

But speaking from my own experience, my father and mother each contributed to my upbringing in completely different ways and both of them provided me with various life skills.

And to put it bluntly, no matter how hard a man or a woman tries, neither can replicate the unique qualities associated with the opposite gender.

So therefore, is it fair to suggest that same-sex couples are not capable of providing the (perceived) balance that exists within heterosexual relationships?

djpbarry

Leon08 wrote: »

It seems that this issue is rarely discussed...

There are several threads on the subject on this website.

AARRRGH wrote: »

It's not an ideal situation though, and I think heterosexual parents should get priority over homosexual parents, simply because having a father and mother is better than two fathers or two mothers, in my opinion anyway.

Surely that depends on the individual, rather than the gender?

peasant wrote: »

It could probably be argued though, that that has nothing to do with the parents being gay (i.e. being gay does not automatically make you a super parent) but with the fact that they have to go through a lot of hassle and resistance to be (allowed to be) able to raise kids and are therefore extremely commited and responsible people/parents.

As opposed to heterosexual parents, who just need to collect 8 tokens from special packs of Kellogg’s Frosties in order to adopt a child.

Aard wrote: »

Or perhaps that their homosexuality might rub off on the child?

Gayness is highly contagious these days, what with the internet and all...

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Homosexual adoption *seems* wrong to me but I have no rational, logical reason to object to it. So thumbs up I guess.

Appreciate your honesty.

peasant

djpbarry wrote: »

As opposed to heterosexual parents, who just need to collect 8 tokens from special packs of Kellogg’s Frosties in order to adopt a child.

I wouldn't be at all surpised if there was statistical evidence that showed that adopted children of heterosexual parents fare slightly better than "natural" children overall, simply because it does take quite some commitment to be a successful adopter in the first place and hopefully that commitment doesn't end once the papers are signed. (unless you're that couple that wanted to give their "rent a child" children back )

RedPlanet

If a child has 2 loving and supportive parents in today's world then they should count themselves as lucky.
So I'd say, don't let gender be a discrimantory issue regarding adoption.
However, most if not all gay couples i know have expressed their desire to raise a gay child and would be disappointed if their child was straight.
Which strikes me as unfair.

Maybe that exists on the other side of the debate too, but the reality is, hetro couples can reproduce, gay couples cannot. So all things are not equal in nature.
I think adopting parents should under go some sort of psychological testing to see if they'd force a particular sexual orientation on kids, and fail them if they do. That goes with both sides.

Reflector

Leon08 wrote: »

.
But speaking from my own experience, my father and mother each contributed to my upbringing in completely different ways and both of them provided me with various life skills.

And to put it bluntly, no matter how hard a man or a woman tries, neither can replicate the unique qualities associated with the opposite gender.

So therefore, is it fair to suggest that same-sex couples are not capable of providing the (perceived) balance that exists within heterosexual relationships?

Ok I too have taken things from both my parents. Any skills that I was taught were independent of the sex of my parents. I completely disagree with the above statements and these unique qualities should be mentioned before I can really see that they cannot be replicated. This balance that you are talking about is completely fictitious. No couple no matter what genders they are composed of can give a complete balance. That is why children are sent to piano lessons, sports teams, extra curricular activities to broaden their education and their minds beyond that that could be achieved by the parents.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The guy wrote: »

Many different people are now adopting kids, ideally Single parents should have a stable hetrosexual partner to look after the kids but I doubt that's going to happen so I think that homosexual parents would be fine despite it not being perfect.

I was actually being sincere with the thumbs up remark. I can't explain why it seems wrong to me & I know its irrational. But there's no point lying on a discussion board

ChocolateSauce

peasant wrote: »

It could probably be argued though, that that has nothing to do with the parents being gay (i.e. being gay does not automatically make you a super parent) but with the fact that they have to go through a lot of hassle and resistance to be (allowed to be) able to raise kids and are therefore extremely commited and responsible people/parents.

Yes, I believe I said that when I stated it had less to do with orientation and more to do with stable family units.

thetyreman wrote:

T hey can do what they want once as i said it dosnt effect me or any of my family,however i am a adult any i have a choice,where as a child up for adoption hasnt.I would hate to think that if god forbid something happened to me and my wife (as in be dead)that my kids would be allowed to be adopted to a gay married couple.

Because you look down on gays, you think there is something wrong with them. You think straight people/couples are intrinsically better than gay ones. I'd be banned if I told you what I think of you, so I'll end here.

Nasty_Girl

I think in this day and age I don't see why it is a problem to have two mothers or two fathers, or a mother and a father and a step father etc.

The arguements usually given are

a) the child will be bullied and has been mentioned, the child could be bullied for any number of reasons : not so long ago children were picked on because they came from "broken homes" (disgusting term), mixed race families and other things that are not considered abnormal now.

b) they don't have appropriate role models from both genders, again lots of chidren don't have a mother and father living at home with them. One parent may be deceased, have left, been a one night stand etc but we are not living in a time of magdaline laundries where these children were taken away!


Also the gender roles in society have changed a lot, and there is no set requirement or template for a family ie no longer is it the case that the father goes out to work and the mother stays home and bakes cakes. Little girls don't always play with barbies and wear pink dresses either.
A hetrosexual couple could consist of a dominant working mother and a passive stay at home father and this may have a different impression to a child with an emotionally cold stay at home mother (think Bree from desperate housewives) and workaholic father and again to a child with two working parents who share all duites of the children and give them conflicting messages as a result.
(not implying ANYTHING about stay at home parents or working parents I'm just trying to outline the differences in roles within the family today and probably not doin a very good job of it )

If a gay couple can be good parents then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to be.

That's just my take on it tho, sorry if it's garbled , it makes more sense in my head

RedPlanet

I agree absolutely.
But thre is another reason:

Gay couples would want to raise a gay child.

From discussions i've had with gay couples I know, i believe they would encourage same-sex relations for their children.

I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but it makes me uneasy.