Gay Adoption?

K-9

Mod: Keep it on topic, that means not introducing paedophiles or abortion into the discussion, thank you.

jank

twinQuins wrote: »

Now now, you're just engaging in a little pedantic wankery. It's not adding anything to the thread, it's just picking at one sentence so you can feel smug.

Not at all. The poster was caught red handed saying something that would be completely unpalatable for everyone else, by her 'reasoning' a peadophile should be allowed adopt.

Again, not comparing gays to peadophiles before the easily outraged among you jizz your pants and start typing.

jank

Mod note taken but the carte Blanche logic should be scrutinised.

Henlars67

1ZRed wrote: »

In fairness you've proven yourself to be a homophobe so doubt you've much power in calling anybody out on this

Off topic, but 'homphobe' is one of the most stupid words in the English Language.

A phobia means a fear of something.
Those who are described as homophobes are bigots who hate gay people. They aren't actually afraid of them.
A phobia is something that can't really be helped, whereas an attitude can be helped.

Like I said, totally stupid word.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

I'm not seeing a cohesive train of thought here. I stated that the child should go to - as far as can be ascertained - the couple best suited to raise it. You state thats naive, and when i clarify you come back with this "many people would think" thing......

I have to spell it out for you. I think its naive that you think what best actually is.

Madam_X

jank wrote: »

I never said it did!! But you clearly stated you would have no objection to it anyway or is that a u turn?

I "clearly" stated I would have no objection to what? A u turn on what?

jank wrote: »

The poster was caught red handed saying something that would be completely unpalatable for everyone else, by her 'reasoning' a peadophile should be allowed adopt.

How was I caught "red-handed"?
Nah, gay adoption isn't completely unpalatable for "everyone else". You shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that everyone thinks like you.
You know perfectly well when a person says they don't care when something doesn't affect them, they're obviously not including harm of others.
Pretending stuff was implied or said when it wasn't, is silly. And makes an adult look like a little kid.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They can make their wishes known and even categorically state who they wish to adopt - but their choice will still have to undergo all of the checks just like any other prospective adoptive parent(s). If they fail the checks it would be very hard for the 'chosen' individual/couple to adopt.

No-one is saying gay couple have a 'right' to adopt. We are saying their sexual orientation should not automatically exclude them and they should be subject to the same checks as heterosexual couples.

This might surprise you but I agree in part. It's why I think heterosexual parents on average would be a better choice but should not exclude same sex couples from trying.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

I have to spell it out for you. I think its naive that you think what best actually is.

You'll have to spell it out more slowly, because I don't understand what the bolded bit means.

SeanW

becost wrote: »

Well I have one question for all the liberal supporters of gay adoption. 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.

If I had had to go through adoption and there was a binary choice between being raised in an orphanage/care home and adoption by homosexual couple I would almost certainly have chosen the latter.

That's a tricky one. Is homosexuality genetic or a lifestyle choice. I always thought that gay adoption might hold the answer and it may show it to be a lifestyle choice. However, If children brought up by gay parents go to the dark side, I'm sure they'll say it's because the child had the gay gene.

I don't get this claim that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice." I can not imagine any time in my life history that I could have chosen to like other men as a "lifestyle choice," IIRC seeing on television a gay man explained that he didn't choose it, and could never have been heterosexual. And it makes sense too, why would someone choose something that's going to get them marginalised, bullied and abused by small minded ********s their entire lives?

So I can never understand why religious people/homophobes (same thing, mostly) refer to homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" like it was Coke vs. Pepsi or beer vs vodka or something. It just doesn't make sense to me on any level.

jank

Madam_X wrote: »

I "clearly" stated I would have no objection to what? A u turn on what?

How was I caught "red-handed"?
Nah, gay adoption isn't completely unpalatable for "everyone else". You shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that everyone thinks like you.
You know perfectly well when a person says they don't care when something doesn't affect them, they're obviously not including harm of others.
Pretending stuff was implied or said when it wasn't, is silly. And makes an adult look like a little kid.

You made a rather glib and open remark that I exposed you on. You added the little caveat in the last post to cover, fair enough. But it's not obvious what you mean in the part I bolded. Maybe u should edit the post :rolleyes:

CdeC

crockholm wrote: »

Ah..so homosexuals are inherently better at parenting then,do you think.
And homosexuals are incapable of beating,abusing and murdering unfortunate children?

No but asking to be put through a rigourous vetting procedure and let a stranger into every part of your life to decide if you are worthy enough to become a parent will probably rule out the mentally unstable homosexuals

jank

Nodin wrote: »

You'll have to spell it out more slowly, because I don't understand what the bolded bit means.

You don't understand that you may not know what constitutes best, or that your interpretation of best may not be the actual. Some ego!

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

This might surprise you but I agree in part. It's why I think heterosexual parents on average would be a better choice but should not exclude same sex couples from trying.

Nope not surprised. You surprised I'm not surprised?

I think every prospective adoptive parent(s) should stand or fall on their own merits.

I know heterosexuals and homosexuals I wouldn't allow to mind my dogs for an hour never mind adopt a child (actually some of them I wouldn't trust to hold my coffee for a minute). Sexual orientation has no baring on parenting ability - neither has gender.

'Best' parent I ever met was a single heterosexual man - I asked him to adopt me but apparently when one is over 18 one cannot be adopted...:mad: My own Dad was crap like...

Madam_X

jank wrote: »

You made a rather glib and open remark that I exposed you on. You added the little caveat in the last post to cover, fair enough. But it's not obvious what you mean in the part I bolded. Maybe u should edit the post :rolleyes:

Oh you "exposed" me - as if you're a whistle-blower. It is of course obvious what I meant - and a person would only choose to pretend it isn't, in order to nitpick and pretend to find a meaning that isn't there for the sake of message-board oneupmanship.
Funny, nobody else seems to have deliberately misinterpreted what I said.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

You don't understand that you may not know what constitutes best, or that your interpretation of best may not be the actual. Some ego!

.....bizarre. At no stage did I ever say I did. The choice (by the relevant body, which really should be taken as read) is presumably made in favour of those deemed most beneficial ("best") to the child.

crockholm

CdeC wrote: »

No but asking to be put through a rigourous vetting procedure and let a stranger into every part of your life to decide if you are worthy enough to become a parent will probably rule out the mentally unstable homosexuals

Same said procedure should rule out the mentally unstable heterosexuals too.

ElleEm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nope not surprised. You surprised I'm not surprised?

I think every prospective adoptive parent(s) should stand or fall on their own merits.

I know heterosexuals and homosexuals I wouldn't allow to mind my dogs for an hour never mind adopt a child (actually some of them I wouldn't trust to hold my coffee for a minute). Sexual orientation has no baring on parenting ability - neither has gender.

'Best' parent I ever met was a single heterosexual man - I asked him to adopt me but apparently when one is over 18 one cannot be adopted...:mad: My own Dad was crap like...

I was coming on to post exactly the same thing.


I have a background in child protection, and have worked with kids in care. The laws in Ireland make it virtually impossible for people to adopt, so kids are left in limbo with no ONE person to care for them.

The most important thing for kids is HOW they are parented, not WHO parents them. I know some really well adjusted kids who have been parented by one parent, or co- parented by a mother and grandmother/ grandparents/ aunts and uncles, etc. All that matters to kids is that they are loved, cared for, respected, encouraged and educated. The sexual orientation of their parent really doesn't/ shouldn't matter.

Rothmans

jank wrote: »

Again, not comparing gays to peadophiles before the easily outraged among you jizz your pants and start typing.

Yes, you are. You're just doing it in a roundabout way so that you won't get banned for it.
You are also completely misrepresenting other posters' opinions.

Bannasidhe

CdeC wrote: »

No but asking to be put through a rigourous vetting procedure and let a stranger into every part of your life to decide if you are worthy enough to become a parent will probably rule out the mentally unstable homosexuals

...and heterosexuals.

Mate of mine was adopted by a Navel officer and his wife. Unfortunately his adoptive father died when mate was 7 at which point his 'mother' sent him off to a very expensive Christian brother's boarding school over 100 miles away where he was horrendously bullied, hospitalised 3 times and ran-away 5 times ('reason' being adopted meant he was a 'bastard') but she kept sending him back to the same school. She even signed him up for the summer camps in the same school every year.:eek:

Turns out she never actually wanted a child (childcare interfered with her golf/bridge playing) and just went through with the adoption to keep her husband happy....

padd b1975

Madam_X wrote: »

Oh you "exposed" me - as if you're a whistle-blower. It is of course obvious what I meant - and a person would only choose to pretend it isn't, in order to nitpick and pretend to find a meaning that isn't there for the sake of message-board oneupmanship.
Funny, nobody else seems to have deliberately misinterpreted what I said.

You're probably on their ignore lists.





Just kidding.

Bannasidhe

Conservative commentators couch their opposition to gay marriage in concern for children, but there isn’t a shred of evidence that gay marriage has any detrimental influence. Mr Quinn is fond of citing a 2002 study — entitled, Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It? — to support his assertion that “sexual complementarity” is the most important attribute for good parents.

However, the president of Child Trends, the US group that published the report, has repeatedly stated that there is nothing in the report to substantiate this reductive position. “No conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents. We have pointed this out repeatedly, yet to our dismay we continue to see our 2002 research mischaracterised by some opponents of same-sex marriage,” said Carol Emig.

Conversely, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the wealth of available evidence shows that children who grow up with same-sex parents ‘fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual’.

In short, it is not the gender of the parents that is important, but rather the nature of their relationships.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/colette-browne/legislating-for-same-sex-marriage-will-reflect-changing-face-of-families-228529.html

Not a shred of evidence that same-sex marriage has any detrimental effect on children.

The author's of the report the likes of David Quinn like to cite as 'proof' children are harmed by being raised same-sex parents say it says nothing of the sort.

The American Academy of Pediatrics say kids raised by same-sex parents are just like kids raised by opposite sex parents.

Can we move on now?

darced

This post has been deleted.

RaRaRasputin

crockholm wrote: »

If myself and the wife were to die, and no sibling was willing to take my son,I would be happier to send him to a straight couple. Probably insistant on it.

How funny, if you were dead you wouldn't be able to choose a parent for him. But see it from the positive side, at least there would be hope for him to grow up with proper spelling.

Mod: Banned

crockholm

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

How funny, if you were dead you wouldn't be able to choose a parent for him. But see it from the positive side, at least there would be hope for him to grow up with proper spelling.

Point one- people sometimes write their will, it could be stipulated(hope I got that one right,I'd hate for it to negatively influence my son).

Point two-Teachers would have more input into his education than me,most likely.

Now,why would you just come here to make an issue of my misspelling?

I didn't report you,honestly,in fact I was looking more for a reply,but alas.

orestes

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about single parents or kids whose parents are divorced? The amount of kids raised in nuclear families isn't anywhere near as high as most people seem to believe it is.

Bannasidhe

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How is the daughter of a widower going to learn about tampons?

How is the son of a single mother going to learn how to shave?

It will be difficult what with them all being raised on desert islands with no other human being around for thousands of miles to teach them such things.




My great-grandfather had no 'male influence' when he was growing up as his dad did a runner before he was born. He grew up to be enough of a 'man' to become a medic in the trenches in WWI and win medals for bravery.

Henlars67

In my opinion it is best for a child to have positive male and female influences in his/her upbringing.

Not always possible unfortunately but in my view it's the best way.

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

Delirium

Henlars67 wrote: »

In my opinion it is best for a child to have positive male and female influences in his/her upbringing.

Not always possible unfortunately but in my view it's the best way.

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

Why is it the best way?

NuMarvel

Henlars67 wrote: »

In my opinion it is best for a child to have positive male and female influences in his/her upbringing.

Not always possible unfortunately but in my view it's the best way.

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

Genuine question: what do you mean by male and female influences? What does a man offer in terms of child care and development that a woman cannot, and vice versa?

darced

This post has been deleted.