Same Sex Adoption

starbelgrade

Please note that the explanation of the poll options are listed below the quoted paragraph.

Under the current adoption legislation in Ireland, a child may be adopted by married couples, a mother or father of the child, a relative of the child, a widow or a widower. In specific cases, the Adoption Board (the independent body that regulates adoption in Ireland) may decide that it is desirable that some other person can adopt a child.

There is currently no facility for couples, other than married couples, to adopt a child. A joint adoption by a couple is only possible where that couple is married and living together. This rule prevents a same-sex couple from jointly adopting a child, even where one of the parties is the biological or legal parent of the child.

From http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/same-sex-couples/adoption_and_same_sex_couples

So what are your views & opinions on same sex couples adopting? How would you vote in a Referendum to change the current legislation, or would you prefer to leave things as they are?

POLL OPTIONS

Option 1 : Same sex couples should be allowed to adopt in the same way married couples are allowed.

Option 2 : Same sex couples should be allowed to adopt, but only if one of them is the biological or legal parent of the child.

Option 3 : Same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt - ie., the current law regarding same sex couples adopting should not be changed.

Option 4 : I am unsure / undecided.

Option 5 : What's a same sex couple? :eek:

Liam Byrne

Option 3 for me.

Morlar

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Option 3 for me.

That's odd I also voted option 3 but it's only got one vote.

Atavan-Halen

Why is this even being debated? They should be allowed to with the same rights as opposite sex couples, end of.

starbelgrade

Morlar wrote: »

That's odd I also voted option 3 but it's only got one vote.

He probably didn't vote - when you post a thread with a poll, it takes a few minutes to do up the poll - in the meantime, posters may post on the thread before the polling optins are available.

starbelgrade

atavan-halen wrote: »

Why is this even being debated? They should be allowed to with the same rights as opposite sex couples, end of.

It is being debated, because under current legislation, they don't have the same rights as opposite sex couples.

Morlar

starbelgrade wrote: »

He probably didn't vote - when you post a thread with a poll, it takes a few minutes to do up the poll - in the meantime, posters may post on the thread before the polling optins are available.

*/conspiracy theory.

I'm glad to see option 1 is in front so far.

mikom

starbelgrade wrote: »

So what are your views & opinions on same sex couples adopting?

Only if they have to adopt the gay babies.

Atavan-Halen

starbelgrade wrote: »

It is being debated, because under current legislation, they don't have the same rights as opposite sex couples.

I know but what I mean is it shouldn't be debated and just a given. That's just IMO anyways.

kev9100

Definitely option 1. It does'nt matter if you're straight or gay, you can still be a great parent.

Piriz

its got nothing to do with the rights of the couple...its all to do with the rights of the child!! adoption exists to replicate a natural upbringing for the child..natural in the respect that it takes a male & a female to make a baby and the child is entitled to have both male and female role models in its upbringing.
End of!

Morlar

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm glad to see option 1 is in front so far.

Does anyone actually think boards is representative of Irish society ? It's a niche demographic I would have thought. Anyway - with all the talk of rights of gay people the priority is not rights of gay people it's the rights of the children to be adopted which are the only rights that matter in this discussion. imo.

Hogzy

atavan-halen wrote: »

Why is this even being debated? They should be allowed to with the same rights as opposite sex couples, end of.

Not really End Of. I can see arguements for both sides. Personally im undecided. Im in favour of Same Sex marriage and im pro choice but iv seen no evidence to show that an adopted child of same sex couples has any side effects on the child. And vice versa, iv seen no evidence to show that a child turns out like any other child!

Tail Wagger

There are some (married/ single) parent/s who should never be allowed to bring up children. So I'd have no problem with same sex couples, or even a single person being allowed to adopt a child. Wouldn't it be better for a child to be loved by someone and be brought up properly than to be left with parents who couldn't give a toss about their children.

kev9100

Morlar wrote: »

Does anyone actually think boards is representative of Irish society ? It's a niche demographic I would have thought. Anyway - with all the talk of rights of gay people the priority is not rights of gay people it's the rights of the children to be adopted which are the only rights that matter in this discussion. imo.

Do you really think growing up in an orphange is better than growing up in a loving home?

PK2008

Ive got absolutely nothing against gay men



...except they like to put their pee pee's up each others bum bums


Whats that all about

RMD

Piriz wrote: »

its got nothing to do with the rights of the couple...its all to do with the rights of the child!! adoption exists to replicate a natural upbringing for the child..natural in the respect that it takes a male & a female to make a baby and the child is entitled to have both male and female role models in its upbringing.
End of!

Bull****. A child is entitled to 2 good role models regardless of sex. You telling me 2 scumbag knackers parents who are straight are better parents than middle class homosexual couple simply because it's "natural"?

00112984

Standard AH answer: Gaybies FTW!

ScumLord

Gay parents are better than no parents. Although I do think that if you have two couples, one a traditional couple and another a gay couple and both work out about the same on paper that the man/woman couple should be chosen over the gay couple simply because children learn allot on how to interact with the different sexes from their parents so it would be preferable to have both sexes represented in the family unit. I know it takes a community to raise a child so having both parents isn't by any means essential but I'd still think it's preferable to have a man/woman parent setup.

starbelgrade

I voted for Option No.1 as I believe that 2 people, whether they are same sex or opposite sex, could be equally as good, or equally as bad at being parents as anybody else. And I see no good reason for not allowing them the same chances to succeed of fail as everyone else has.

The fact that a same sex couple cannot even adopt a child at present even if one of them is the father / mother, quite frankly, I find shocking. Say, a kid who is reared by a gay/ lesbian couple from birth for 12 years (I randomly picked the age as an example), then the legal or biological parent dies, the other parent has absolutely no rights to continue the parenting of their child.

In such a case, not only would they lose a partner & a child, but the child would lose both it's parents - one by death & the other through the legal system. It seems incredible that such a thing could happen.

Morlar

kev9100 wrote: »

Do you really think growing up in an orphange is better than growing up in a loving home?

Orphanage or gay parents. Abusive or gay parents. Those are not the choices.

stovelid

Option one.

Personally, I feel it would be ideal for a child to have a guardian of the same gender - especially for boys to have a male role model.

At the end of the day though, surely people that can provide a loving and safe home for children shouldn't be discounted on the basis of their sexuality.

starbelgrade

atavan-halen wrote: »

I know but what I mean is it shouldn't be debated and just a given. That's just IMO anyways.

I believe that bullfighting is justifiable, is often on a similar par of cruelty to animal slaughter for human consumption & that anyone who eats meat and disagrees with this opinion, is a hypocrite. That's my opinion, but I don't believe that I have the gumption to think that it is a given & should not be debated.

The_Minister

kev9100 wrote: »

Do you really think growing up in an orphange is better than growing up in a loving home?

Since we are so short of adoptable children in this country that most couples have to adopt outside it, it isn't a choice between a gay couple and an orphanage - so long as they are young and not disabled they will get adopted.

rc28

Just to point out that same-sex couples have been raising children in other jurisdictions for years now with no evidence being shown that these children do any worse off in their social development etc. Also, it has been shown that the children of such couples are no more likely to be gay than the children of heterosexual parents.

Gay couples can currently foster children in Ireland btw.

Piriz

RMD wrote: »

Bull****. A child is entitled to 2 good role models regardless of sex. You telling me 2 scumbag knackers parents who are straight are better parents than middle class homosexual couple simply because it's "natural"?

so by your logic the higher the up the class system the more appropriate adoptive parents make? pfffffffft....weak argument! 2 scumbag knackers wouldn't make it past the screening process. A childs natural environment involves male and female parents..adoption mimics this natural system.
both male and female role models are the ideal setting which adoption structure follows as it is best for the child...how can you not get that...this is not about gay rights...its about a child's rights.

all these other arguments about well would a child be better in an orphanage etc are just based on compromise...

and the arguments about bad parents etc have nothing to do with adoption...you can not take a child from bad parents and enforce the child's adoption.

The_Minister

It bears repeating that gay parents are already adopting children, but as single parents, and so far they don't seem to be doing anything too wrong.

PK2008

If they grew up in an Irish orphanage their exposure to gay sex would be infintely greater than if they were adopted by a gay couple

ScumLord

Piriz wrote: »

A childs natural environment involves male and female parents..adoption mimics this natural system.

Not as such as far as I know, the natural environment involves cousins, grandparents, neighbours. Out of all the higher primates humans spend the least amount of time with their offspring. They readily hand their children over to other family members and even non family, it helps learn all the social techniques humans need to interact with each other. The natural upbringing for a human child tends to involve dozens of people it's not completely dependant on just two people.

rainbow kirby

Option 1 - two loving parents, regardless of gender, should have the right to apply to adopt.

Ostrom

atavan-halen wrote: »

Why is this even being debated? They should be allowed to with the same rights as opposite sex couples, end of.

Because the rest of us who have spent decades being fu**ed by the relevant departments on post-placement support would like to see the system overhauled before subjecting more parents and children to it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Simply put, no.

Thinking logically, same sex cannot reproduce, therefore they should not be allowed adopt a child, generally speaking.

Homosexuality is not "natural" in the sense that if it were a human normality and dominant, we may be in a spot of bother.

The child should have the right to "normal" parents, in the sense that both parents are of opposite sex.

It's fcuking complicated because there are lots of circumstances that a child would be better off with a gay couple. i.e. loving gay parents > abusive straight parents.

As the child grows up, it is only fair that he/she is brought up by both sexes and has a male and a female influence. Growing up with gay parents doesn't mean the child will automatically be unstable or anything of the like.

Oh, this is my opinion, so if you don't like it you are more than welcome to FO

Wolfe Tone

Personally I am against same sex couples adopting. I don't believe its a good environment for a child to be brought up in. This is also the reason why I am against same sex marriage, I fear that that would lead to adoption.

keepkeyyellow

So let me get this straight, some people think that having NO parents is better for a child than having GAY parents?

And all this need a father and a mother bullcra/p is the same arguments they used when saying that single parents couldn't adopt.

Option 1 ftw.

Piriz

ScumLord wrote: »

Not as such as far as I know, the natural environment involves cousins, grandparents, neighbours. Out of all the higher primates humans spend the least amount of time with their offspring. They readily hand their children over to other family members and even non family, it helps learn all the social techniques humans need to interact with each other. The natural upbringing for a human child tends to involve dozens of people it's not completely dependant on just two people.

true to an extent, yet you can not dispute the child's parents are commonly the most important people in the child's life., whilst a secondary structure 'may' exist the primary structure is with the parents. As a result hey learn most about adult gender differences from their mother and father. Hence the most ideal role models. The balance of male and female figures is what makes it ideal.

starbelgrade

Piriz wrote: »

A childs natural environment involves male and female parents..adoption mimics this natural system.
both male and female role models are the ideal setting which adoption structure follows as it is best for the child...how can you not get that...this is not about gay rights...its about a child's rights.

A child also has the right to be reared by his/ her biological or legal parent. This parent also has the right to choose any partner they wish - even one of the same sex. If the partner they choose also rears the child, then where are their rights?

In the eyes of the law as it stands, neither the child, nor the partner have any rights to each other. In this case, no, it is not about gay rights. It is not about parental rights either & it's certainly not about the rights of the child.

The only rights that are upheld in such cases is the right of the state.

jiltloop

I have a nothing against gay marriage or gay people but I do not think gay people should have a right to adopt children. I believe children should ideally be brought up with 2 opposite sex parents as this is probably most beneficial for their mental and psychological development. I also would be worried about such children being bullied in schools. We all know how cruel children and teenagers can be and I think they could easily become targets.
Also I wonder why this is even being considered or debated in this country at the moment considering how backward father's rights are. Maybe we should improve legislation regarding the natural father's rights to their children before even considering gay people's rights to children.

Overature

To be honest i dont think that its fair to the child to be brought up by two people of the same sex. You need both male and female for the child to have the best understanding of how the world works. There are things that males will be able to teach the child that the female would not be able to and vice versa.

bluecatmorgana

I think the rights of the child come first and then the rights of the adopter second.
However many many people are not brought up with a mother and a father and in most causes it turns out grand. You often hear of people being brought up by their two aunts or their mother and grandmother. I think the ideal is to have a support system of two people regardless of gender.

Bodhisopha

If they can pass the "hamster test" first, i'm all for it.

Piriz

Piriz wrote: »

true to an extent, yet you can not dispute the child's parents are commonly the most important people in the child's life., whilst a secondary structure 'may' exist the primary structure is with the parents. As a result hey learn most about adult gender differences from their mother and father. Hence the most ideal role models. The balance of male and female figures is what makes it ideal.

To be honest, I think they learn most about adult gender differences when they reach puberty, and the parents have very little to do with this education.

The balance of male and female figures does not have any benefits. Any suggested benefits depend on some supposed personality differences between men and women, which are largely outdated.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

I think the rights of the child come first and then the rights of the adopter second.
However many many people are not brought up with a mother and a father and in most causes it turns out grand. You often hear of people being brought up by their two aunts or their mother and grandmother. I think the ideal is to have a support system of two people regardless of gender.

In those situations there is not a sexual relationship, they are also family. That's somewhat different.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

To be honest, I think they learn most about adult gender differences when they reach puberty, and the parents have very little to do with this education.

The parents do have a huge effect if they're there, have you ever noticed that it's always mammys boy and daddys girl?

Knarr

Warren Unkempt Papier-mache wrote: »

Thinking logically, same sex cannot reproduce, therefore they should not be allowed adopt a child, generally speaking.

Lots of heterosexual couples cannot reproduce which is why many turn to adoption in the first place. Nothing exclusive to homosexual couples.

Homosexuality is not "natural" in the sense that if it were a human normality and dominant, we may be in a spot of bother.

But it is a human 'normality'. In the same way there is gender imbalance, racial imbalance or eye colour imbalance there is imbalance in relation to sexuality in society. Some have even proposed evolutionary reasons why homosexuality exists in the same way we can explain in evolutionary terms the purpose of heterosexuality as a human condition.

The child should have the right to "normal" parents, in the sense that both parents are of opposite sex.

Norms and attitudes constantly change and are not rigid. Look at this poll - people are redefining them.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Deleted User wrote: »

To be honest, I think they learn most about adult gender differences when they reach puberty, and the parents have very little to do with this education.

The balance of male and female figures does not have any benefits. Any suggested benefits depend on some supposed personality differences between men and women, which are largely outdated.

You will have a serious influence from your parents about a lot, from a very very young stage, this will be stored in your subconcious, it will effect you. More than you think.

Piriz

starbelgrade wrote: »

A child also has the right to be reared by his/ her biological or legal parent. This parent also has the right to choose any partner they wish - even one of the same sex. If the partner they choose also rears the child, then where are their rights?

In the eyes of the law as it stands, neither the child, nor the partner have any rights to each other. In this case, no, it is not about gay rights. It is not about parental rights either & it's certainly not about the rights of the child.

The only rights that are upheld in such cases is the right of the state.

fair point. a biological right over-rights any adoptive legal system. hence you can not take a child from its natural parents and enforce their adoption into another family. A gay person can not have their child taken from them bacause they are gay. If the childs boilogical parent died and the child had a relationship with the parents partner then if it was deemed best for the partner to become a foster parent then this is what would happen.

simply put, as said above homosexuality is not 'natural' in the sense of making a family..its the childs right to be placed into as 'natural' & 'ideal' upbringing as possible. This is what i agree with!

bluecatmorgana

Warren Unkempt Papier-mache wrote: »

In those situations there is not a sexual relationship, they are also family. That's somewhat different.

Whats the sexual relationship got to do with it?
Children adopted by a couple could be in a sexless relationship. Parents are a support system and a support system can be made up of any family.

starbelgrade

Warren Unkempt Papier-mache wrote: »

In those situations there is not a sexual relationship, they are also family. That's somewhat different.

Most couples who have kids together consider themselves a family. In all essence, they are a family.

What they do in the bedroom - be they gay or straight - really has nothing to do with it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Knarr wrote: »

Lots of heterosexual couples cannot reproduce which is why many turn to adoption in the first place. Nothing exclusive to homosexual couples.

That's unfortunate, but many factors may play a role, at least both people have the reproductive organs, they just don't work. Tight pants on men, diets, etc etc.

But it is a human 'normality'. In the same way there is gender imbalance, racial imbalance or eye colour imbalance there is imbalance in relation to sexuality in society. Some have even proposed evolutionary reasons why homosexuality exists in the same way we can explain in evolutionary terms the purpose of heterosexuality as a human condition.

I would class it as an abormality. Reproducing offspring is high on the list of priorities for life forms, in order for that species to exist and continue existing it must reproduce. Homosexuals cannot reproduce.

You can theorise that homosexuality is a defence mechagnism for our species to slow down reproduction, but... that's a whole can of worms there.

Racial imbalance, eye colour imbalance etc etc is not a problem, it does not effect your psychological development to the extent of having two same sex parents. It is quite normal for different races to reproduce, because they can

Norms and attitudes constantly change and are not rigid. Look at this poll - people are redefining them.

When I say normal, I mean it is normal for a man and a woman to reproduce, under normal circumstances. I am talking about the very basics. Also, can you name any animal that reproduces same sex? Not asexually I am unaware of any.

bluecatmorgana

I wonder is it the sex thing here that bothers people. Say if two sisters who lived together wanted to adopt a child , technically can they? If a single person can surely they could also?