Adoption

Jak

Feel free to mod this over to humanities.

But one of the most contentious debates in our office in the last year was whether Gay couples should be allowed to adopt.

I'm curious how all of you feel on this topic. Is it something you plan to do?

Personally I don't feel gay couples should be allowed to adopt a child. My argument is none of that archaic, "I wouldn't trust them around children crap" (which I regret to say I have heard in discussions on the subject).

However I simply do not believe it is a natural environment to bring a child up in. I feel it lacks balance, and I feel kids upbringings can be hard enough in school these days without having to deal with the whole "My two dads" issue.

Now the all too obvious counter is - well single mothers and widowed parents bring up children on their own, so surley that lacks some balance. Yes they do, and yes it does, and all credit to them for managing. But I don't think anyone would argue that that is an ideal situation, and given the choice a father and mother is the ideal balance for a child.

I feel an adopted child should only ever be placed within a stable, natural family unit. And at the end of the day if a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't have children between themselves they simply are not a "natural" family unit and so should in my view just accept that.

JAK.

BuffyBot

I'm curious how all of you feel on this topic. Is it something you plan to do?

If I had the time, and the resources at a stage where I beleive I could offer a child a stable home, I would certainly consider it. I beleive that as a parent, I have a lot I could offer.

However I simply do not believe it is a natural environment to bring a child up in. I feel it lacks balance, and I feel kids upbringings can be hard enough in school these days without having to deal with the whole "My two dads" issue.

A natural environment? That's a hell of a can of never-ending debate you've opened there. It all depends on how you look at it. Is an environment which contains abusive parents still preferable to gay adoption? Is the care of two drug addicts a preferable option over a comfortable, safe and loving environment provided by a male or female couple? These are only examples - the combinations of circumstances are infinite.

As for upbringing - no matter what environment kids come from, kids will be cruel. I came from 2.4 children land and I still went through hell at stages in my school life. Kids will find a weak spot no matter what. "My two dads", "You've no dad", "You don't know whno your dad is" or "Your mam and dad are dead" - you name it, no matter where you come from, if kids want to find a way to bully another - they will. Which leads me to..

Now the all too obvious counter is - well single mothers and widowed parents bring up children on their own, so surley that lacks some balance. Yes they do, and yes it does, and all credit to them for managing. But I don't think anyone would argue that that is an ideal situation, and given the choice a father and mother is the ideal balance for a child.

Many people choose to bring their children up on their own for whatever reason. It's a valid choice. Again I would argue it's a perfectly valid option. Many stable, healthy children have come out of such families.

I feel an adopted child should only ever be placed within a stable, natural family unit. And at the end of the day if a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't have children between themselves they simply are not a "natural" family unit and so should in my view just accept that.

Well, so you may feel. Others don't. Me being one of them. I think the whole definition of a "natural" family unit is slowly changing over time, and soon it will encompass many different combinations. As for accepting it, that would be just wrong. If we (GLB people), as a group, just accepted the status quo, I hate to think where we would be today.

Jak

Is an environment which contains abusive parents still preferable to gay adoption? Is the care of two drug addicts a preferable option

Adoption agencies would not allow a child to be adopted into a family of drug addicts or abusive parents. They do their best to vet all families. I don't accept the argument that just because there is worse out there, why not allow it. We should always be aiming for the ideal situation, and while less than perfect situations exist, I see no reason to add more less stable upbringings into the mix.

no matter what environment kids come from, kids will be cruel

Kids can be cruel yes. And there is a chance any kid may suffer a little from his peers. But gay parents? That is just a guaranteed ammo pack for every other kid in the school.

Many people choose to bring their children up on their own for whatever reason. It's a valid choice. Again I would argue it's a perfectly valid option. Many stable, healthy children have come out of such families.

Indeed they do. But it is not the ideal situation, and given the choice a father and mother is preferable to any of the above. Adoption agencies have this choice, and on behalf of the children I think they owe it to them to place them in a natural family unit where children might otherwise be. You cannot argue that nature supports same sex couples having children as this is simply not the case.

I firmly believe that a father and mother each bring unique qualities to a childs upbringing, I don't think a same sex couple can achieve this.

As for accepting it, that would be just wrong. If we (GLB people), as a group, just accepted the status quo, I hate to think where we would be today.

You cannot change everything, and while I agree with equality in 99% of the areas, I don't think this is your 'right'.

Just because you are not given the right to adopt does not mean that it is something you are being denied unjustly.

JAK

chernobyl

Yes they should.
There is no reason why not...none!

Unbalanced...single parents, abusive parents, additcts, assholes..its all the same and they are all straight in my example.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

But gay parents? That is just a guaranteed ammo pack for every other kid in the school.

*shrug* so it won't be easy, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed the opportunity.

Adoption agencies have this choice, and on behalf of the children I think they owe it to them to place them in a natural family unit where children might otherwise be

I don't really see how a "Natural" family unit would be preferable to a same sex couple tbh.. as long as there is love, and the parents can provide for and take care of their children.. there's no point squabbling over the details.

course I could be wrong here, I haven't seen any stats or essays on this

Just because you are not given the right to adopt does not mean that it is something you are being denied unjustly.

true, but you haven't proven that at all why is it "just" that same sex couples should not be let parent? Granted there will be differences in the upbringing of the child, than in a "natural family unit", but who are you/we to condemn those differences?

Personally, I think it would be... strange to see two men, or two women with a child of their own, but I really don't care.. once I got used to the idea the notion wouldn't give me pause.

One question I would have though is how the same sex couples would deal with issues of their childs sexuality? .. would the child see "gay" as the norm? or would it feel ashamed for being hetro? it could possibly resent it's parents "abnormal" lifestyle..

*shrug*

BuffyBot

Hmmmm - ok, first of all, sorry if my post was not clear. I meant that the child's original family could be abusive/drug addicts/alcoholics or whatever - not the adoptive parents. I'm well aware careful screening is done on prospectives.

You say we should be aiming for the ideal situation. I'm saying the ideal is changing. As society changes, the concept of the nuclear family is becoming more and more diluted by different familial structures. I think this is something which we will see more of over time. I can't see why gay people being parents are any different that the traditional nuclear family. You see this as adding more unstable upbringings to the mix, I see it as bringing more diversity into the mix.

As for the kids - again, I think it's something we're unlikely to agree on.

I firmly believe that a father and mother each bring unique qualities to a childs upbringing, I don't think a same sex couple can achieve this

You feel like this, many others don't. This isn't the place to start the psychological debate on the matter though. I firmly believe that a same sex couple can achieve it.

You cannot change everything, and while I agree with equality in 99% of the areas, I don't think this is your 'right'.

Just because you are not given the right to adopt does not mean that it is something you are being denied unjustly.

You're definition of equality needs to be looked at again. You can't have "Equality Lite" - to agree with equality on somethings. People can't be less equal in some areas or else it isn't equality. Equality, by it's nature is black and white. Each piece must be the same to be equal.


I think I'll wait until some others reply though before debating any further. It would be interesting to see what people think.

DeVore

This is a can of worms alright.
I can only argue this from my feelings, I havent thought through the reasoning behind it (if there is any) but I'd have to say I wouldnt support gay-adoption. I think the child will grow up without proper sexual rolemodels for what is LIKELY to be its sexuality. I'm sure you all can appreciate what thats like...

If it was that or a orphanage or the street then by all means, but its far from perfect imho, and we should seek the best solutions possible...

Like I said, thats my gut feeling rather then a well-thought out stance.

DeV.

Jak

True, I'd like to see what a few other people think.

Am heading out now so can't address all the points, but one or two

Granted there will be differences in the upbringing of the child, than in a "natural family unit", but who are you/we to condemn those differences?

We are the people who make the laws and determine the kind of society we live in and the sort of world we want for our own children.

quote:

---

But gay parents? That is just a guaranteed ammo pack for every other kid in the school.

---

*shrug* so it won't be easy, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed the opportunity.

This is exactly the point. They shouldn't be allowed the opportunity because it is unduly unfair to the child.

You're definition of equality needs to be looked at again. You can't have "Equality Lite" - to agree with equality on somethings. People can't be less equal in some areas or else it isn't equality. Equality, by it's nature is black and white. Each piece must be the same to be equal.

This isn't 'equality lite'. It's like the Monty python sketch of fighting for 'Loretta's' right to have babies - it's not about being less equal, it is simply that you are not capable of having children and I think a child should always go to a male/female family first and foremost.

In any case equality is for the individual, you are bringing a child into your own personal equality issue which is not 'black and white'.

yellum

Originally posted by Jak

However I simply do not believe it is a natural environment to bring a child up in. I feel it lacks balance, and I feel kids upbringings can be hard enough in school these days without having to deal with the whole "My two dads" issue.

So to avoid any difficulties in a childs upbringing you should avoid anything that could be a cause of conflict ? What if the child has a a lisp or hairlip, would you not send him/her to school but school him/her at home ?

This "keep your head down and avoid conflict" attitude is pretty rampant in many parts of Ireland and its sickening. People should stand up for themselves more and if conflict occurs fair enough. Saying that if the child is getting constant harassment then it is heart-breaking and you would not want to be a contributing to its misery but as Buffybot says, theres always going to be intimidation and bullying. Hopefully the country will evolve to be more open minded but waiting until it does is not the right way.


But I don't think anyone would argue that that is an ideal situation, and given the choice a father and mother is the ideal balance for a child.

Thats wrong, you really don't have the right to judge this at all. How very Catholic to say something like this. There are loads of people that were raised by one parent for many different reasons. You are now saying that their upbringing was somehow not ideal and inadequate ? I know loads of guys and gals that were raised by their mother or father alone and they're now great adults.

The father mother 2.4 kid family unit is a thing of the past now. There are many variations now and once the kids are brought up n a stable and loving environment they're fine. Unless we win some award for best family unit we cannot judge what is the best way to raise a family. The state and church here for many years dictated how kids should be raised and look at the mess they made of so many peoples lives

I feel an adopted child should only ever be placed within a stable, natural family unit. And at the end of the day if a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't have children between themselves they simply are not a "natural" family unit and so should in my view just accept that.

With the current science women can probably have kids between themselves. But what is natural. 1 in 10 people are meant to be homosexual. Does this percentage fit into "normal" ?

yellum

Originally posted by DeVore

I think the child will grow up without proper sexual rolemodels for what is LIKELY to be its sexuality. I'm sure you all can appreciate what thats like...

So what about those kids that turn out to be homosexual to a heterosexual couple ? This kind of starts the whole nature versus nurture argument. Is sexuality genetic or environmental or both or none ?

If raised in an open and caring environment where parents encourage a child to make its own decisions then a child will come to its own conclusions about its sexuality. Nowadays anyway, parents have less influence as they did on their childs upbringing. Theres so much to see on televisions and in papers and on the net for a child to look at all these different possibilities and see where they fit in and what they want.

Jak

Originally posted by yellum
So to avoid any difficulties in a childs upbringing you should avoid anything that could be a cause of conflict ? What if the child has a a lisp or hairlip, would you not send him/her to school but school him/her at home

This is something we have control over, given the choice would you wish your nephew or neice would have a lisp or hairlip? In any case it is not my only objection.

This "keep your head down and avoid conflict" attitude is pretty rampant in many parts of Ireland and its sickening. People should stand up for themselves more and if conflict occurs fair enough. Saying that if the child is getting constant harassment then it is heart-breaking and you would not want to be a contributing to its misery but as Buffybot says, theres always going to be intimidation and bullying. Hopefully the country will evolve to be more open minded but waiting until it does is not the right way.

I do stand up for what I believe in. This is me doing just that. I don't believe you should be given the decision to put a few kids through the system to see if they can 'cut' it - for what you feel is your right. I believe in an individuals equality, but this is not just about the individual you are taking children unable to contribute an informed decision into the matter.

But I don't think anyone would argue that that is an ideal situation, and given the choice a father and mother is the ideal balance for a child.

Thats wrong, you really don't have the right to judge this at all. How very Catholic to say something like this. There are loads of people that were raised by one parent for many different reasons. You are now saying that their upbringing was somehow not ideal and inadequate ? I know loads of guys and gals that were raised by their mother or father alone and they're now great adults.

There is no religious motives in my decisions here at all. My point is that given the choice (which adoption agencies have) - children should go to the ideal situation. I have two friends who were raised by a single mother and a friend who's dad raised him after the mother died. They did a good job, but those lads wished they had had a father or mother - and still do.

I feel an adopted child should only ever be placed within a stable, natural family unit. And at the end of the day if a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't have children between themselves they simply are not a "natural" family unit and so should in my view just accept that.

With the current science women can probably have kids between themselves. But what is natural. 1 in 10 people are meant to be homosexual. Does this percentage fit into "normal" ? [/B]

And with genetic engineering we may be able to grow babies in bloody tubes. That does not make it a good idea, and it most certainly is not natural.

I have said nothing against homosexuality being normal or otherwise. What consenting adults do between themselves is nobodies concern - I simply do not think you should be allowed to adopt and raise children.

JAK.

ps-fixed quotes

Shinji

There's a lot of talk here about what's "natural".

Let's think for a minute about what is actually natural.

It's perfectly NATURAL and POSSIBLE for a 14 year old girl to get banged up by her 18 year old boyfriend, who proceeds to bugger off when he finds out she's up the duff, leaving a baby to be raised by a girl barely more than a child herself.

It's perfectly NATURAL and POSSIBLE for a pair of heroin addicts to get together for a sweaty roll in the hay and create an unfortunate child, born with a heroin addiction.

It's perfectly NATURAL and POSSIBLE for a woman to be raped and have a child that she loathes because of who its father was.



Natural good, unnatural bad? Gross over-simplification. If these naturally possible scenarios can work out so badly, why the hell shouldn't we consider "unnatural" family units and see if they work?

In my experience there are many gay men out there who are intelligent, considerate, compassionate, tolerant, well-educated, financially secure and very "grounded" as individuals; perfect fathers, in other words, and men who would make excellent role models and carers for children. Never mind THEIR rights; is it fair to deprive a child of the right to have such a person as its father, in place of an orphanage - or an abortion?

(I also don't really buy this idea that mother and father are both essential ingredients to the raising of a child. That's the only family unit most of us have any experience of, so naturally there's a temptation to believe that it's the only one that works - but given the huge personality differences between people, the different relationship dynamics that exist in marriages... Not to mention the perfectly happy and well-adjusted people who have come from single-parent families, or unsanctioned gay or lesbian couples.... I think it's fair to ask for a little more proof that this mystic need for both genders in raising a child is actually the case.)

Jak

Shinji you are taking the whole natural thing out of context. Nature is the basis for all this natural talk, in the sense that gay people cannot have kids - hence a gay family is unnatural in that regard - it would not occur in nature - clear?

Anyhows we are talking about adoption and ...

Adoption agencies have the choice

The kids already got a tough break - give them the best chance you can now. There is absolutely no way I can see it preferable for a child to go to a same sex couple through adoption over a regular mother/father combination. All this other stuff about drug addicts having kids and so on so forth, well if you want to lump yourselves in with them on the basis, "they have kids why can't we" then fine - but I think children should be taken from them also and put in care until the family sorts itself out or an agency finds a new family for the child - and that is exactly what a number fo agencies try to do.

There is no such thing as a gay family unit. Nature does not work that way - putting kids into this situation is not right in my view.

As an aside, it is not only absence of a mother or father, it is the presence of a second mother or father - which I believe is not an ideal situation for the child to grow up in.

Shinji

hence a gay family is unnatural in that regard - it would not occur in nature - clear?

Right, but you're missing my point. A lot of the families which DO occur in a perfectly natural fashion are environments I wouldn't subject any child to; and a lot of gay people could make an excellent family environment out of an "unnatural" situation.

I don't believe whether it's natural or not matters a damn. What matters is whether you're putting a child into a loving, happy environment where they can feel secure and wanted, be educated and raised correctly, fed and clothed correctly, taught right from wrong and generally grow up to be useful, happy adults.

Any concerns outside of that are strictly under the heading of personal bias and prejudice, because that is all that matters.


You talk about adoption agencies, by the way, as if they've got a supply of kids on tap which they can turn on or off depending on how many of your idyllic straight couples turn up on their doorstep looking for a child. The simple fact is that fertility treatments are getting better and fewer and fewer straight couples will have to adopt in future; and yet there are more and more unwanted pregnancies.

Here's a stark question for you which I want a straight answer to - given the life of a child which has just been concieved, pick one of the following two options: abortion, or being raised by a gay couple.

Jak

Personally I put the choice of abortion in the hands of the parent Shinji - not to be annoying, but could you rephrase the question?

And regards the main part of your post - I do not think a gay couple could raise a child correctly - in the sense I do not think it is an ideal environment. I think it is unbalancing for the child and unfair to the child.

Victor

Not arguing the point either way and I'm sure I'm misphrasing this, but is the right of a gay couple to adopt greater that the right of a child to have a mixed-parent family?

And is this discussion beyond a gay discussion and does it rightly belong in an adoption debate, not a gay debate.

And seeing as this is a GLB Issues board, what of the 2 mummies and one daddy scenario?

Shinji

I do not think a gay couple could raise a child correctly

In which case we're down to a fairly basic point of opinion which it's probably not even worth arguing over. There isn't sufficent hard fact to support either side of this case.

It's my belief that a great many straight couples make an utter mess of parenting, and that quite a few gay couples could do it very well. You obviously disagree with the latter part of this statement, which is fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion.


By the way, as to abortion being the choice of the parents - I'm not anti-abortion as such, but I'd far prefer to see a world where no abortions take place that aren't medically necessary, but unwanted kids are put up for adoption. My question was simply whether you believe that in an instance where your idyllic "Perfect" straight couple can't be found, the kid is better off going to a gay couple who will give it love, attention and as decent an upgringing as possible - or if that unwanted child would have been better off being aborted. That's a fairly core question to my own view on this issue, see.

Seraphina

ok so i didn't read the WHOLE thread, but i read most of it, and there's the whole natural/unnatural debate going on. i think that having either 2 mummies or 2 daddies, is a hell of alot more natural than living in an orphanage with a ton of other kids and not getting adequete love or attention from carers. im not saying that they're not cared for in the orphanage, but 2 parents, be they same sex or not, can offer alot more care and support than staff who are looking after loads of kids, and then what about staff turnover? your basing this on the idea that a mixed sex couple is more suitable than a same sex, but lets face it, there aren't a whole lot of mixed sex couples out there looking to adopt, most of them are able to have their own kids. so in the end, i believe that 2 mummies or 2 daddies, is a hell of alot better than no mummy or daddy, and that same sex couples should be given the right to adopt if they wish.

De Rebel

This is a very big issue and one that evokes a lot of strong opinions.

For me there are two points that immediately spring to mind - both relating to the status of gay relationships-

Gay adoption would require that gay relationships be fully legally recognized. Inheritance rights, custody rights, etc. etc. all need sorting out. And Ireland is a long way from doing this. Unfortunately.

Gay relationships tend to be transitory and short lived. A sweeping generalization, and there are notable exceptions. Some of the pressures which cause gay relationships to breakdown are lessening, but the fact remains that only a very small percentage of gay relationships last for the 15/20 years necessary to see through the upbringing of a child.

Neither of the above are “written in stone” reasons for prohibiting gay adoption. I certainly know many gay guys who would make great parents. But I don’t see it happening in the short term.

DapperGent

Shinji raises a very valid point in that fertility treatments are getting a lot better and that teenage (a high percnetage unwanted) pregnancies are very much on the increase.Right now Ireland as a society has the luxury of having very much more childless couples seeking children than it has parentless children.

In this scenario and with limited knowledge of the impact on a child of same sex parents it seems easier, safer and certainly less hassle to give the children to heterosexual couples, given that there is such a large amount of stable and financially secure childless hetero couples about.

However there really is no scientific or indeed anecdotal evidence (to my knowledge) to suggest that same sex parenting can somehow damage children. Pretty soon we're going to get to the sticky situation that a choice is going to have to be made between giving a child to a finacially secure stable intelligent gay couple or to a less than suitable hetero one.

This has the look of a no brainer to me. It's intuitive to think that opposite sex parents are the best way, but no one can really tell you why. Everyone agrees that the most important thing for a child is being loved, feeling safe, supported, encouraged. None of this is exclusive to hetero parents.

The only certain drawback for children of gay parents is that they're going to cop a fierce slagging and this shouldn't be underestimated as a drawback. But taking such a factor onboard is to let the stupid assholes in our society make important decisions for us. This is never a good idea.

Saying that samesex parenting is less than ideal because it doesn't "feel right" to you is horrifically lazy. Just because such a position seems intuitively obviously doesn't mean it's right.

DeVore

And seeing as this is a GLB Issues board, what of the 2 mummies and one daddy scenario?

mmmm hot! (/me goes to stand in that *bad* Admin corner again).


Ok but seriously, is anyone here saying that a kid who is up for adoption should equally go to a family of same sex parents as a mother/father couple? Given that all else being equal?

I have to say that since the kid is 9 in 10 times likely to be straight, the mother/father parents should be chosen.

I'm not saying that Gay parents should never be allowed adopt but realistically I dont *feel* that they offer as stable and secure and comfortable a surrounding for what is LIKELY to be a hetro kid.

Does anyone claim they should just toss a coin between the two couples who want to adopt?

DeV.

Talliesin

Children should not be placed with anyone who thinks that having parents of each gender provides "balance" that parents of the same gender don't.

Someone that stupid would probably keep forgetting they have a child with them, or putting food in the washing machine and detergent in the child.

Jak

Great post talliesen.

Talliesin

I have to say that since the kid is 9 in 10 times likely to be straight, the mother/father parents should be chosen.

That doesn't hold at all. You might as well say that since the average gay man or lesbian is likely to have a better understanding of straight lifestyle than the average straight person does of gay or lesbian lifestyle then they are better suited to cover to odds that the child might, but probably won't, be gay or bi.

Hence if we were to take the child's potential orientation into account bisexuals would be favoured, followed by gays and lesbians, and only when no queers are available should straights be allowed to adopt!

On a more serious note, its not like there aren't plenty of gays, lesbians and bisexuals with their own children anyway.

Typedef

What the issue really is I feel is, is whether the society considers particularly male homosexuality as being 'abarrant' and for that reason would not considering ceding a child to 'particularly' a male couple.

If it were a female couple, then perhaps those two individuals would have an increased chance comparitively speaking of adoption when contrasted to a male couple.

This stems from society's ideal of a male and female brining up a child in a nuclear family, which is a particularly Western ideal. In many different societies throughout the ages, there has been a significant divergence from this monotheistic motif.

However I think that the real reason same-sex couples (particularly male couples) are not considered for adoption, is that deep down, society thinks that somehow, the men in question are 'more likely' (somehow) to sexually abuse the child in question, maybe that is just blinkered homophobia or perhaps there are statistics to support this standpoint. In either case, that latent fear of homosexuality and the unspoken desire of society if given a choice not to have a child grow up to be homosexual is I think the real reason gay adoption is not permissable in most Western societies.

Essentially the reason gay couples are not really allowed to adopt in the current Western society is because, as a whole society 'tolerates' homosexuality and if given a choice it likes to promote hetrosexual relationships as the iconiclastic ideal of human inter-personal sexual relations. That is the real reason why gay adoption is not allowed, when one cuts through the superficial layers of politically correct dancing around the issue.

Do I support gay adoption? For me it's a misnomer. I support a child being adopted into a stable background, preferably with money, access to facilities and so on, such that said child can become, as productive a member of society as possible. Does that mean hetrosexuality in the parental relationship? That depends, for me, I find that my parents attitudes towards sex really do reflect on how I deal with the world vis-a-vis sex, so, the real question is.

Do we support homosexuality as an ideal proported from parent to sibling? Homosexuals do and I suspect Hetrosexuals do not. Therefore, do I support homosexual adoption? I don't know, to be honest. Not being gay, my inital reaction is to say 'hetrosexual relationships are the supposed ideal', however the expected tolerance and understanding that Western society expects of your average informed citizen leads me to say 'laissez faire' and let gay couples adopt.

Therefore I'd have to say, lots of evidence for or aganst such adoptions and why or why not, society should allow homosexual adoption would have to be presented and is requisite for me to give a for or against.

Regards
Brian.

Shinji

Ok but seriously, is anyone here saying that a kid who is up for adoption should equally go to a family of same sex parents as a mother/father couple? Given that all else being equal?

In an absolutely all-things-being-equal situation, then obviously the heterosexual couple is a better choice.

Thing is, all things are not always equal. Given the choice between a stable, caring family environment with a gay couple, or a potentially less favourable environment with a straight couple, I believe that the gay couple would make better parents. It's up to the adoption agencies to make the judgement calls in this situation.

By the way, I really don't think the sexuality thing matters a damn. A lot of happy, well-adjusted gay people grow up in straight families; a lot of well-adjusted straight people grow up with single parents whose relationships present a far from ideal model of heterosexual relationships!

Beruthiel

there's not much more I can add to this discussion, other than to say I see nothing wrong with a child being adopted by a gay couple. I don't think the 'stable husband/wife' thing can stand up much any more, not with separation/divorce as well as all the other stuff already mentioned above. In my family of four sisters - between us having five daughters - only one of us is still with the father. I'm quite sure we are not special for this, there are no guarantees in this life.
So, if two people of whatever sex, decide they can take care and love that child, then fair play to them, there are many fathers out there (and some mothers too) who never see their kids from one year to the next.
All of you here know that there are literally millions of kids all over this planet who deserve to be taken care of by somebody, anybody and there certainly isn't exactly a long line of volunteers.
No matter what sort of family you belong to it will be neither perfect or 100% stable, mine certainly wasn't and I'll bet hardly any of you can say different either.

Victor

Seeing as the concept of a stable, balanced home is generally agreed as the ideal, what about siblings for this adopted child? (If nothing else to split the inheritance with ) Most gay couples won't be bringing siblings to the table.

Touching on what Typedef said, we very much have the western concept of 'family' here, two adults and one or more children. Other societies have different models. Some involving grandparents in the home, e.g. Italy, Romania. Some are overwhelmingly maternal (in a heterosexual way), e.g. Arab countries. No doubt there are still places where boys are brought up by men and girls by women.

Typedef

Lets not forget the Greeks used to encourage their Hoplites to take male lovers in the phalanx, so that if and when a Hoplite was killed, his lover would fight to avenge his death.

The point being that a Nuclear family is an iconiclastic motif, that examples such as the Greek Hoplite and Minoan civilisation generally, do not bear out.

Jak

Aye the minoans got so into it that their civilisation didn't make it in the end.

ozpass

I was always under the impression that children needed love, attention, support and nurturing. Is anyone suggesting that these would not be forthcoming from gay parents?

The argument that children adopted by gay parents will be alienated by their peers is a reflection on society and its narrowminded stereotypes, not the capacity for same-sex couples to raise a child successfully. Laws against same-sex couples raising children can only serve to perpetuate this prejudice.

I believe that sexual role models are primarily outside of the 'family unit'. When's the last time you imagined your parents having sex without grimacing? Ewwwww. Yellum's right though- better not drag up the old 'nature v. nurture' debate in an already hot thread.

At the end of the day consider this:
You need a licence to sell booze.
You need a licence to own a dog.
You need a licence to catch a fish for Christ's sake!
But any heterosexual couple- no matter how poorly equipped to manage the situation- can have a child.

If a same sex couple are demonstrably capable of raising a child, according to accepted criteria (determined by the adoption agency; beyond their sexuality) I believe they should be entitled to do so.:)