Gay Adoption?

orestes

jank wrote: »

The thing is though most people here don't give a **** about the kids, they just their worldview accepted and move on to the next battle for equality. That word has lost it's true meaning.

What word? Adoption? Cos that's what this thread is about.

AngryHippie

I'm pro-adoption, why not ?

I don't think a same sex couple can make a worse job than all of the hetero couples with domestic abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse etc. do.
I think on the case by case basis on which it is currently administered with the usual background checks and investigation being done, there is exactly the same risk.

I'd vote yes, but I'll never be voting in Ireland again, so I suppose its moot.

Trudiha

jank wrote: »

The thing is though most people here don't give a **** about the kids, they just their worldview accepted and move on to the next battle for equality. That word has lost it's true meaning.

I think that you're right in that the dogma does continue to be put before the child. Now that collectively, we've mostly given up on vilifying unmarried mothers and totally given up on taking away their children for trafficking, there are very few babies available for adoption. Now it's mostly older kids with behavioural problems or disabilities who are looking for homes, children who are possibly even more vulnerable than babies. Would be parent don't get to adopt in the same way that most of us wouldn't get a mortgage nowadays, it's not that mortgages aren't available, just that most of us would be hard pushed to meet the massive demands of lenders or the criteria of the HSE.

A tiny, tiny number of gay people do get to adopt, not because of bigotry but because hardly any of the wider population could meet the exacting standards that are set. Of the tiny few gay parents who adopt, the parents who've managed to meet those standards, most are taking on those exceptionally vulnerable older children who've often been abused or neglected. As a society, we've usually failed those children at least once and I think that giving those children only one legal parent, fails them again. It's only dogma that is standing between the stability of having two legal parents instead of just the one.

The vast majority of gay people rearing children are rearing non-adopted ones, their children are the product of previous relationships, assisted conception, co-parenting arrangements or, more rarely, surrogacy. Most of those kids are also denied the legal protection of two parents. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of real, live children are walking around with fewer rights and protections than kids who are born to married heterosexuals and while that isn't as bad as when we whipped them away for illegal adoptions or trafficking, the lack of equality those children are given does hark back to those days.

NuMarvel

jank wrote: »

The thing is though most people here don't give a **** about the kids, they just their worldview accepted and move on to the next battle for equality. That word has lost it's true meaning.

I presume you're throwing that out at the pro-adoption crowd, but really it applies more to the anti-adoption crowd.

K-9

jank wrote: »

The thing is though most people here don't give a **** about the kids, they just their worldview accepted and move on to the next battle for equality. That word has lost it's true meaning.

Except posters have quoted a study showing it makes no difference for children, so that's just a pointless rant to try and get a dig in.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jank wrote: »

The thing is though most people here don't give a **** about the kids, they just their worldview accepted and move on to the next battle for equality. That word has lost it's true meaning.

Show me one study that points that a homosexual man can not be a father to a child. Bearing in mind, gay adoption is legal in Ireland, as long as the adopting gay parent is single and not in a relationship.

VinLieger

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Ah, ok. So its both or none.

None it is, so.

So you claim to be neutral on the issue earlier in the thread and then make this statement? Can you explain that please?

VinLieger

jank wrote: »

The thing is though most people here don't give a **** about the kids, they just their worldview accepted and move on to the next battle for equality. That word has lost it's true meaning.

So when beaten by logic and statistics you just resort to wild claims?

Czarcasm

jank wrote: »

The thing is though most people here don't give a **** about the kids, they just their worldview accepted and move on to the next battle for equality. That word has lost it's true meaning.

Care to speak for yourself there?

Thanks.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Okay, cards on the table. For me, the idea that gay adoption is wrong is usually a cover for homophobia.

Either it is or it's something else, and no one seemsto be able to accurately claim that it's soemthing else.

Trudiha

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Okay, cards on the table. For me, the idea that gay adoption is wrong is usually a cover for homophobia.

I'd agree that trying to deny any child two parents on the basis of the sexuality of their parents probably is homophobic in practice, I don't think that it's at the root of the argument. I expect that it tends to be less about actual homophobia and more about privileged dick swinging. People who'd never consider adopting a child themselves or been in a position where they were in any way a minority, want to keep all of the privilege to themselves, not even the privilege to adopt these children, just the privilege to exclude someone else from doing so. It's a case of 'I am normal', 'I am natural', 'my way isn't just the best way, it's the only way'. If they have that idea challenged by successful gay parents, what are they left with?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Trudiha wrote: »

I'd agree that trying to deny any child two parents on the basis of the sexuality of their parents probably is homophobic in practice, I don't think that it's at the root of the argument. I expect that it tends to be less about actual homophobia and more about privileged dick swinging. People who'd never consider adopting a child themselves or been in a position where they were in any way a minority, want to keep all of the privilege to themselves, not even the privilege to adopt these children, just the privilege to exclude someone else from doing so. It's a case of 'I am normal', 'I am natural', 'my way isn't just the best way, it's the only way'. If they have that idea challenged by successful gay parents, what are they left with?

Exceelent point. In fact, I'd argue this as a very good discription of a phobia/bigot.

Trudiha

Trudiha wrote: »

I'm not a great fan of adoption, I'd far rather see birth parents given all of the support needed to raise their own child but I'm aware that it isn't always possible and that it can be a fantastic outcome for both folks unable to have birth children of their own and the adopted child.

Gay people can adopt but only as single parents and not as couples and while I'm sure that we all know of lone parents doing a fantastic job, is it ideal to deliberately give a child only one legal parent when their are two available?

I have always been confused / bothered by this. It has always made me feel like the parents in question HAVE to lie in order to apply. An application process that by default pushes the applicatant towards lying is for me a bad place to start.

Trudiha

Deleted User wrote: »

I have always been confused / bothered by this. It has always made me feel like the parents in question HAVE to lie in order to apply. An application process that by default pushes the applicatant towards lying is for me a bad place to start.

I don't know if I understand you, do you mean that gay parents have to lie about their sexuality/relationships or do you mean that way all prospective adoptive parents have to lie about being 'perfect' rather than the 'good enough' that most of us have enough trouble living up to?

Trudiha

Trudiha wrote: »

I don't know if I understand you, do you mean that gay parents have to lie about their sexuality/relationships or do you mean that way all prospective adoptive parents have to lie about being 'perfect' rather than the 'good enough' that most of us have enough trouble living up to?

I mean - for example - if the parent in question was filling out the application forms and got to the field "Single/In Relationship/Cohabiting/Married" and so on they are likely then to enter "Single" even if they are not.

All the areas of the application where they would normally fill in details about their co-applicants life, work, history and so forth - will all be left blank therefore.

Which means the people who actually do make the choices on how and where to place children will be doing so on incomplete data.

What people do not seem to realise is if we have single parent adoption - then we ALREADY HAVE gay adoption. We just do not acknowledge it officially - or efficiently.

It is my view there is nothing at all wrong with gay adoption at all. Ideally we should have ALL relevant data when placing children and if gays have to leave out data then that is not a good thing.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

I have always been confused / bothered by this. It has always made me feel like the parents in question HAVE to lie in order to apply. An application process that by default pushes the applicatant towards lying is for me a bad place to start.

They dont have to lie about anything, however they must make a choice who is going to be the legal guardian of the child and who is going to have no rights whatsoever

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

They dont have to lie about anything, however they must make a choice who is going to be the legal guardian of the child and who is going to have no rights whatsoever

As above I just mean they have to lie about having a partner etc etc etc. And leave all the details about their partner blank while applying. That can not be a good thing? If their partner is going to influence the future of the placed child then surely the ideal would be that the placement board/committee know about this person while placing them?

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

As above I just mean they have to lie about having a partner etc etc etc. And leave all the details about their partner blank while applying. That can not be a good thing? If their partner is going to influence the future of the placed child then surely the ideal would be that the placement board/committee know about this person while placing them?

I dont know enough about the adoption system to know if this is true or not, if it is its awful. I hope that they dont have to lie about being in a relationship in fact im almost certain it would be against the law to?

crockholm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Okay, cards on the table. For me, the idea that gay adoption is wrong is usually a cover for homophobia.

Either it is or it's something else, and no one seemsto be able to accurately claim that it's soemthing else.

You have a point, I have a gay sibling that I don't see often and thats the only gay person I know.I could lie and say that it's nothing to do with it,but it would be a lie.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont know enough about the adoption system to know if this is true or not, if it is its awful. I hope that they dont have to lie about being in a relationship in fact im almost certain it would be against the law to?

My knowledge of it is poor too. It is more a fear I have long held that if you say "Gay couples can not adopt but single people can" then you have instantly constructed the envisonment in which such necessity will breed dishonety. If a Gay couple want to adopt they will just apply as a single applicant and therefore that instantly means the placement board do not have the full picture.

And that _has_ to be far from "ideal" right?

nozzferrahhtoo

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

If the parents stay together to raise the child then it's just paperwork that says the child only has one parent and it should never really effect them. The big issue with this system is if the parents split.

I think there is a lot more than that to be worried about. Not just splitting. What about, say, death? Or next of kin or other types of proxy rights when one or both of the parents are incapacitated?

becost wrote: »

Would you have preferred to have been raised by two mummies or two daddies? It's a yes/no answer. If everyone is 100% honest, I won't expect to get one Yes.

I fail to see the relevance of the question entirely. What has preference got to do with it? Many of us might "prefer" our parents to be other than they are in some way. So what?

My honest answer? The sex of my parents is the furthest thing from my mind when I imagine what I might "prefer" them to be or not be. In fact I would like to think that the contents of their underpants would have no bearing whatsoever on how a parents brings up a child.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I agree with gay marriage but i think were possible a kid should be brought up by a man and a woman

I see nothing to support that though. I think "where possible" the child should be brought up by the best choice of parents for that kid at the time. There are many factors upon which one can and should mediate that choice and I do not think sex or sexuality should be on that list.

crockholm wrote: »

If it is a choice between a stable straight home or a stable gay home, which would you choose?

I do not know because you have not given any factors to base the decision on. The one factor you have mentioned is about as relevant to my decision as you asking "Would you prefer a family with a red car or a blue car".

FoxT wrote: »

Great point, Crockholm, I fully agree with it.

Huh? He did not make a point. He expressed a preference.

nozzferrahhtoo

Henlars67 wrote: »

There is no doubt that children of homosexual couples will be bullied

Henlars67 wrote: »

Children with 2 daddys will be bullied, that will happen and to suggest it won't is burying your head in the sand.

I think you are giving too much credit to bullies here about how they pick and choose their targets. You make it sound like they pick someone who has gay parents and then proceed to bully them. I think you have it exactly backwards.

Bullies are cowards first and foremost. They pick the target first and their material second. They will target the vulnerable kid first and then find something to bully them about second. Fine if the vulnerable kid has gay parents, all the better for the bully, but if not the bully will just as quickly find something else to hit them with. So to speak.

Henlars67 wrote: »

I'm undecided whether or not that is a good enough reason to be against gay adoption

I do not think it is. No more than being handicapped or having ginger hair is a reason not to be a parent.

And that is before you factor in the whole "Do not negotiate with terrorists" style of thinking. Curtailing the rights of gays to adopt because of the crimes of a third unrelated party of bullies is pandering and giving in to the bullies. Something one should never do.

Henlars67 wrote: »

Of course this most likely makes me a bigot in the eyes of those who love to get offended on other people's behalfs.

Not bigoted. But given there seems to be a lack of anything to support said position it certainly makes it uninformed. Or perhaps I am uninformed on what the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning is behind the idea that it is the "best" way. If so, by all means let me know them.

However I have been talking with people for no small number of years who declare that the "one man one woman" configuration is some kind of "ideal" and aside from saying over and over it is "natural" I have yet to find one person substantiate or support the position. Ever.

nozzferrahhtoo

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who needs one? What do you mean "male" or "female" influence? How is it relevant? What is important about it?

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Appeal to Natural fallacy rarely gets us anywhere. "Natural" is not synonymous with "best" at all. In fact many times it is not even with "good" or even "nice".

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah nothing better than a handful of anecdotes to extrapolate a nonsense generalization from huh? Is there anything at all which backs up this claims? Statistics? Studies? Causal links?

WayneMolloy wrote: »

There is a case in Connecticut of two gay men repeatedly raping two of their adopted sons.

Rightly or wrongly, cases like that will put people off same sex adoptions. Even if it can be proven that statistically, gay men are not more prone to abusing their adopted sons.

The fact that this puts them off gay adoption and not straight adoption or adoption as a whole - when the exact same types of cases can be found there too - says more about them than gay adoption. It belies the human penchant for retrospectively seeking out data to confirm already held biases and bigotry.

WayneMolloy wrote: »

It sticks in peoples minds. People are pretty impressionable, and those that oppose same sex adoption will use it to paint a particular picture.

It is not that people are impressionable. It is that people are prone to confirmation bias. If you decide you hate Taxi drivers you will spot... and remember - them making road errors much more than the average Joe in an unmarked Opel Astra.

Similarly unless you have already a bias against gay adoption there is no reason for a story like yours to stand out in your mind any more than stories of the same thing happening to straight adoptions.

That and the fact that for the media - gay people raping them is a story... while straight people raping them is not. The fact that despite the media bias towards such stories there are actually so few of them... says much to me statistically.

Trudiha

Deleted User wrote: »

My knowledge of it is poor too. It is more a fear I have long held that if you say "Gay couples can not adopt but single people can" then you have instantly constructed the envisonment in which such necessity will breed dishonety. If a Gay couple want to adopt they will just apply as a single applicant and therefore that instantly means the placement board do not have the full picture.

And that _has_ to be far from "ideal" right?

The assessment process is long and arduous, there is no fibbing on the form, well maybe there is but there is no fibbing on a form that won't end up in the bin. By the end of the process the social worker knows the brand of loo paper you use, if you have ever worn your knickers inside out, how you will deal with racism towards your child and how handy you are with a hoover. If you are in a CP, you're partner has to give their permission for you to adopt as a single person, go through all of the background checks and be assessed on their suitability, even though they will never have any rights or legal responsibilities towards the adopted child.

The law might be dodgy but the HSE are, rightly, like hawks.

VinLieger

Trudiha wrote: »

The assessment process is long and arduous, there is no fibbing on the form, well maybe there is but there is no fibbing on a form that won't end up in the bin. By the end of the process the social worker knows the brand of loo paper you use, if you have ever worn your knickers inside out, how you will deal with racism towards your child and how handy you are with a hoover. If you are in a CP, you're partner has to give their permission for you to adopt as a single person, go through all of the background checks and be assessed on their suitability, even though they will never have any rights or legal responsibilities towards the adopted child.

The law might be dodgy but the HSE are, rightly, like hawks.

Great to know, thanks for explaining it

jank

orestes wrote: »

What word? Adoption? Cos that's what this thread is about.

Equality

Trudiha

Trudiha wrote: »

The assessment process is long and arduous, there is no fibbing on the form, well maybe there is but there is no fibbing on a form that won't end up in the bin.

I would of course like to believe that is true and hope you are right. It is not a process I know well so I can not agree or disagree either way.

It certainly would be an ideal to work towards. However no system is perfect from adoption placement to dole payouts. People always find ways to "work the system". I just feel that GIVING them a reason to do so and in some ways compelling them to do so (Either you find away to act single or you simply can not apply) is probably not the best first step to be making.

Bannasidhe

Trudiha wrote: »

The assessment process is long and arduous, there is no fibbing on the form, well maybe there is but there is no fibbing on a form that won't end up in the bin. By the end of the process the social worker knows the brand of loo paper you use, if you have ever worn your knickers inside out, how you will deal with racism towards your child and how handy you are with a hoover. If you are in a CP, you're partner has to give their permission for you to adopt as a single person, go through all of the background checks and be assessed on their suitability, even though they will never have any rights or legal responsibilities towards the adopted child.

The law might be dodgy but the HSE are, rightly, like hawks.

Now think about the implications of that bit in bold for a second - one subjects oneself to background check, assessments, strangers poking into your life, finances, general suitability etc etc in order for your partner to adopt a child but should you split up, your partner can prevent you ever seeing that child - or should your partner die then you have no legal claim on that child - the HSE will look to your partner's legal next of kin - usually a parent but may be a sibling - who will not have had to go through any background checks during the adoption process.

My son is my biological son but back in the day I spent a fortune creating a legal framework to try and ensure that should I die his 'other mother' would have primary care of him and not my homophobic alcoholic bully of a father who was my legal next of kin. I did this in the knowledge that should my father be so inclined as to challenge it, the courts would probably side with him. Such a decision would have resulted in my son loosing both his parents, his home, being dragged to live in a country he hardly knew with a man he didn't like or trust whom he had met precisely twice.

Daith

Deleted User wrote: »

It certainly would be an ideal to work towards. However no system is perfect from adoption placement to dole payouts. People always find ways to "work the system". I just feel that GIVING them a reason to do so and in some ways compelling them to do so (Either you find away to act single or you simply can not apply) is probably not the best first step to be making.

It's not a gay person pretending that they are single. They will say they have a partner or in a CP but that partner will have no rights.

Even if you are in a CP you apply as a single applicant. Cos this is Ireland :rolleyes:

Trudiha

jank wrote: »

Equality

Yeah it is about equality, every single child should have the same right to two parents responsible for their welfare. The children of gays and unmarried folks should have equality to the children of married heterosexuals.