Gay adoption

MagicMarker · 12-07-2008 06:29PM

What about gay wrestlers?

dr_manhattan · 12-07-2008 07:02PM

What about gay wrestlers?

Don't be disgusting.

;-)

Bottle_of_Smoke · 14-07-2008 07:13PM

Dave! wrote: »

There was a time when a child would be abused to no end for coming from a broken home; for having Protestant parents; for having inter-racial parents; for having foreign parents... etc etc etc. Society evolves and people grow up. There's nothing exceptional about homophobia, it's just another form of prejudice in a similar vein to racism. There was a time when black people were slaves, and were lynched regularly. We move on. Now it's an outrage if anything like that is even joked about.

If they're not slagged about having gay parents it will be because they have spots or glasses or they're fat or they're too smart or they're too dumb or they're black or they're Muslim or they're crap at sports.

The way to deal with sh*t like this is to not let the bigots and the morons win; it's to challenge the opinions of the parents, and educate the children about the subject. It will soon become acceptable, just like everything else.

There is some merit to this argument, but I really just wouldn't feel comfortable putting a child through the torture they'd receive in school/sports from their peers. You shouldn't use children to make the world a better place for gays & if you would then you shouldn't even be considered for parenting.

Perhaps if people were more tolerant toward gays it would be ok but in the current climate I wouldn't subject a child to it. People can say I'm contributing to the intolerance all they want but I'm just living in reality whereas they're living in an idealistic dreamland.

But all this aside -- has anyone got research which provides information on the welfare of children with heterosexual parents versus homosexual parents? Is there a significant difference? Or are we just going on anecdotal evidence and stories from our childhood about the guy who came out and was beaten up?

I don't know how you'd go about getting that research, is it possible for gays to adopt legally anywhere? that's the only way you could get proper evidence & I don't know if those kids would even be teenagers yet.

the_syco wrote: »

I'm against it, but... there isn't. Kids don't catch the gayness. Think about it: gay people come from hero's, so gay's won't make hetro kids gay.

I'd imagine there would be a higher incidence of gay kids coming from gay couples. People mimic their parents in many different ways. Though it's not a reason I'm against gay adoption. There's probably lots of gay people straight acting because their parents are straight. I don't think a straight couple is the natural order either as early humans probably lived with tribes of close friends & non-immediate family members.

Not related to the_syco's response but the "I'd rather see the child go to a loving gay couple than a hellhole straight family" is utterly irrelevent as all couples ADOPTING would be screened.

The only good reason I can see for legislation for gay adoption is that many gays (moreso lesbians) can find someone of the opposite sex to father/mother their child.

kizzyr · 14-07-2008 08:14PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

There is some merit to this argument, but I really just wouldn't feel comfortable putting a child through the torture they'd receive in school/sports from their peers.

See I don't see why this should be used as a form of torture for anyone. If it became the norm for people of all sexual orientation to parent children then it wouldn't be something unusual and so a "good thing" to pick on someone about would it?

Perhaps if people were more tolerant toward gays it would be ok but in the current climate I wouldn't subject a child to it. People can say I'm contributing to the intolerance all they want but I'm just living in reality whereas they're living in an idealistic dreamland.

Again I disagree, I can't understand why people are intolerant of someone who happens to be gay, how are they harming you by being gay anyway?

I'd imagine there would be a higher incidence of gay kids coming from gay couples. People mimic their parents in many different ways.

^^ I couldn't disagree more with this, your sexuality is not a learned behaviour it is something you are, if it were a learned behaviour then heterosexual people wouldn't have gay children then would they?

Not related to the_syco's response but the "I'd rather see the child go to a loving gay couple than a hellhole straight family" is utterly irrelevent as all couples ADOPTING would be screened.

While prospective adoptive parents may be screened at the moment, it is still wrong (IMO) that people who happen to be homosexual but in all ways that matter good people and good parents are immediately excluded from the process because they happen to be homosexual.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 14-07-2008 09:16PM

kizzyr wrote: »

See I don't see why this should be used as a form of torture for anyone. If it became the norm for people of all sexual orientation to parent children then it wouldn't be something unusual and so a "good thing" to pick on someone about would it?

As I said earlier, there's a huge waiting list for adoptions, ask anyone trying to adopt. So of the tiny amount of people adopting only 10% would be homosexual, and that's assuming the same amount of gay people want to adopt as straight. Could be higher amount for one group, I have no idea which.

Again I disagree, I can't understand why people are intolerant of someone who happens to be gay, how are they harming you by being gay anyway?

That's not disagreeing with me, I don't like intolerance toward gays any more than you do. I do have an understanding but I don't agree with it. Howver the fact of the matter is that people are intolerant of gays. I'm just thinking of the welfare of the child. A lot of people here seem to be putting ideals before logic.

^^ I couldn't disagree more with this, your sexuality is not a learned behaviour it is something you are, if it were a learned behaviour then heterosexual people wouldn't have gay children then would they?

You're starting to piss me off. As I said, I think there'd be higher incidence & then stated there's probably lots of straight acting gays who behave (and perhaps even believe) they're straight. I believe it's a nature rather than nurture myself so I'd prefer you actually read my post and stop misquoting me. Have you heard of the spectrum theory? That most people(straights) are "very straight" some people are "very gay" and then bisexuals come somewhere inbetween. So if someone has gay parents they may be more likely to come out as they might feel more comfortable. I don't think it's a reason to stop gay adoption as I don't see anything wrong with being gay.

While prospective adoptive parents may be screened at the moment, it is still wrong (IMO) that people who happen to be homosexual but in all ways that matter good people and good parents are immediately excluded from the process because they happen to be homosexual.

It's the world we live in & it really has to change before gay adoption is allowed. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it's not happening.

johnnyskeleton · 14-07-2008 10:43PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

My opinion is no. A child is better off with a male & female parent

Why?

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

and there's no shortage of suitable hetero couples who want a child.

Yes there is, otherwise we wouldn't have foster care, orphanages and street children.

I think the reality is that there is no shortage of suitable hetro couples who want a nice pristine Chinese or Russian child, but would turn their noses up at a 3 year old raised by a junkie in Dublin or Limerick city centre.

johnnyskeleton · 14-07-2008 10:55PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't like intolerance toward gays any more than you do. I do have an understanding but I don't agree with it. Howver the fact of the matter is that people are intolerant of gays. I'm just thinking of the welfare of the child. A lot of people here seem to be putting ideals before logic.

This is interesting because I would consider myself quite intolerant of gays. The way gay men act like little girls is creepy and annoying. They also seem to be very passive-aggressive too, and they don't like tits which is a classic sign of stupidity.

However, I don't think this means that I am against gay adoption, because on balance two gay people who can bring up a child in physical, financial, emotional and intellectual safety are much better than a heterosexual family who abuse their adoptees (which has happened, and continues to happen on a very regular basis).

Cato · 15-07-2008 12:26AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why?

Yes there is, otherwise we wouldn't have foster care, orphanages and street children.

I think the reality is that there is no shortage of suitable hetro couples who want a nice pristine Chinese or Russian child, but would turn their noses up at a 3 year old raised by a junkie in Dublin or Limerick city centre.

EPIC post....

EPIC FAIL that is.

The_Minister · 15-07-2008 01:09AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes there is, otherwise we wouldn't have foster care, orphanages and street children.

I think the reality is that there is no shortage of suitable hetro couples who want a nice pristine Chinese or Russian child, but would turn their noses up at a 3 year old raised by a junkie in Dublin or Limerick city centre.

That is one of the most ignorant statements that I have ever read on Boards, and I read some of the immigration threads in After Hours.

The_Minister · 15-07-2008 01:11AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

However, I don't think this means that I am against gay adoption, because on balance two gay people who can bring up a child in physical, financial, emotional and intellectual safety are much better than a heterosexual family who abuse their adoptees (which has happened, and continues to happen on a very regular basis).

You are speaking about foster care. Abuse in adoption cases is very rare in Ireland (although it does happen).
Again, the adoption criteria are so strict that the choice above never arises.

Dave! · 15-07-2008 01:41AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

There is some merit to this argument, but I really just wouldn't feel comfortable putting a child through the torture they'd receive in school/sports from their peers. You shouldn't use children to make the world a better place for gays & if you would then you shouldn't even be considered for parenting.

It sounds very dramatic when you call it 'torture'... Is there any evidence to suggest that teasing about having gay parents is any more damaging to a child than any other kind of teasing? Children will tease each other about everything, I don't know why you get so hung up on the gay parenting thing. Do you know something I don't know relating to the mental health of these children? Or is it just another thing that they will get over once they become adults and it will not affect them in the long-term?

Would you take the same stance where an Arab couple want to send their Muslim child to a public school (where it will likely be a minority)?

I don't see the drama to be honest. The child will likely be teased, sure. But it's rare for someone to go through school without being teased about something! Even repeated teasing is fairly common.

Also, consider this -- in school, did you know anybody whom lost a parent at a young age? I did, and the bloke was an absolute dipsh*t who got abused non-stop. But what would happen if someone mentioned his mother? The bully would get absolutely abused by everyone else! Even if the greatest bully accidentally made a mistake and mentioned his mother, he'd be apologising profusely within seconds.

I don't know anyone who has been adopted, but I suspect that it would similarly be something which is treated with a bit of caution. If a child has been adopted, it's usually not because they had a healthy upbringing.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't know how you'd go about getting that research, is it possible for gays to adopt legally anywhere? that's the only way you could get proper evidence & I don't know if those kids would even be teenagers yet.

Wikipedia says: "Guam, Andorra, Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, some parts of Australia, Canada and some parts of the United States."

I believe it varies state to state in the last 3, plus Germany.

The American Psychological Association has done a bit of research on the subject, here (PDF), and found that:

"...there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay
parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

(there's a summary here)

There's another good paper by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, here (PDF), which reports:

"...the Institute is firmly of the view that the law should be changed to allow same sex couples to be assessed as applicants for adoption..."

It's also at pains to point out that:

"This change will not give same sex couples the right to adopt. It merely means that they are eligible to apply. Each case will be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

Surely this is an important point. It doesn't mean that every gay couple who applies will come out with a child -- but they'll be assessed. A greater pool of potential parents means the assessors have more choice of who will make eligible parents.

The Williams Institute has also done research, here (PDF), and concludes:

"...findings across these studies are remarkably consistent in showing no negative consequences for children of GLB parents with regard to standard child well-being measures."

The American Academy of Paediatrics has issued a policy paper, stating:

"...emphasizing that in light of data showing that children of gay and lesbian parents function just as well emotionally, cognitively, and socially as children of heterosexual parents, courts should stop using sexual orientation as grounds to deny members of same-sex couples the right to adopt their partner’s children."

Likewise I believe with the American Medical Association, and if other papers are to be believed (not arsed looking into it):

• American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1999)
• American Bar Association (1999, 2003)
• American Psychoanalytic Association (2002)
• Child Welfare League of America (2004)
• National Adoption Center (1998)
• National Association of Social Workers (2002)
• North American Council on Adoptable Children (1998)

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'd imagine there would be a higher incidence of gay kids coming from gay couples. People mimic their parents in many different ways.

That doesn't appear to be the case.

"Sexual Orientation. A number of investigators have also studied a third component of sexual identity: sexual orientation (Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach, 1995; Bozett, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989; Gottman, 1990; Golombok et al., 1983; Green, 1978; Huggins, 1989; Miller, 1979; Paul, 1986; Rees, 1979). In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both gay fathers and lesbian mothers described themselves as heterosexual. Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents."

johnnyskeleton · 15-07-2008 08:02PM

Cato wrote: »

EPIC post....

EPIC FAIL that is.

What exactly do you disagree with in my post? Or is it that you're just in the mood to insult people with no rational argument?

By the way, people only post fail when someone tries to start a funny thread in after hours and gets no responses; what you have said is completely out of context.

johnnyskeleton · 15-07-2008 08:23PM

The_Minister wrote: »

That is one of the most ignorant statements that I have ever read on Boards, and I read some of the immigration threads in After Hours.

Care to prove me wrong then, or just criticise me without thought? There is also a suggestion in what you have said that what i've said is some how racist/sexist or otherwise not politically correct, care to explain why you think so? After all, I'm merely stating my belief that prospective adoptive parents want a baby, not a child.

The_Minister wrote: »

You are speaking about foster care. Abuse in adoption cases is very rare in Ireland (although it does happen).
Again, the adoption criteria are so strict that the choice above never arises.

I don't see how the potential for abuse is any different in foster care than it is for adoptive parents. There have been criminal prosecutions taken in respect of abuse suffered by adopted children in adoptive care so your point is meaningless, unless you can give a rational explanation as to why abuse happens in one but not the other.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 15-07-2008 09:09PM

Dave! wrote: »

It sounds very dramatic when you call it 'torture'... Is there any evidence to suggest that teasing about having gay parents is any more damaging to a child than any other kind of teasing? Children will tease each other about everything, I don't know why you get so hung up on the gay parenting thing. Do you know something I don't know relating to the mental health of these children? Or is it just another thing that they will get over once they become adults and it will not affect them in the long-term?

How would go about obtaining evidence for something like that? From what people were like in school it's pretty obvious children of gay parents would fare worse than others. Homosexuality is still a very taboo issue whether people are PC on the outside or not. Most parents for example would still be horrified if their kids came out.

Would you take the same stance where an Arab couple want to send their Muslim child to a public school (where it will likely be a minority)?

No, because the taboo about Muslims is nothing on gays. And there's going to be far more Muslim kids than children of gay parents for reasons spelled out clearly earlier.

I don't see the drama to be honest. The child will likely be teased, sure. But it's rare for someone to go through school without being teased about something! Even repeated teasing is fairly common.

Also, consider this -- in school, did you know anybody whom lost a parent at a young age? I did, and the bloke was an absolute dipsh*t who got abused non-stop. But what would happen if someone mentioned his mother? The bully would get absolutely abused by everyone else! Even if the greatest bully accidentally made a mistake and mentioned his mother, he'd be apologising profusely within seconds.

They'll be teased a lot more than for anything else. I know what you mean about the losing a parent being off limts but I really don't believe having a gay parent would be.

Wikipedia says: "Guam, Andorra, Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, some parts of Australia, Canada and some parts of the United States."

I believe it varies state to state in the last 3, plus Germany.

The American Psychological Association has done a bit of research on the subject, here (PDF), and found that:
"...there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay
parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."
(there's a summary here)

I'm not saying they'd make unfit parents individually, my argument is more based around the effect on the child growing up amongst peers. I also think they'd be better off with female & male role models, which a heterosexual couple would offer.

There's another good paper by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, here (PDF), which reports:
"...the Institute is firmly of the view that the law should be changed to allow same sex couples to be assessed as applicants for adoption..."

It's also at pains to point out that:
"This change will not give same sex couples the right to adopt. It merely means that they are eligible to apply. Each case will be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

Surely this is an important point. It doesn't mean that every gay couple who applies will come out with a child -- but they'll be assessed. A greater pool of potential parents means the assessors have more choice of who will make eligible parents.

I don't quite get this? IF it doesn't give them the right to adopt why be asessed. It's sounds like me going on trial for the English football team, but assumedly I'm missing something?

The Williams Institute has also done research, here (PDF), and concludes:

"...findings across these studies are remarkably consistent in showing no negative consequences for children of GLB parents with regard to standard child well-being measures."

The American Academy of Paediatrics has issued a policy paper, stating:
"...emphasizing that in light of data showing that children of gay and lesbian parents function just as well emotionally, cognitively, and socially as children of heterosexual parents, courts should stop using sexual orientation as grounds to deny members of same-sex couples the right to adopt their partner’s children."

Likewise I believe with the American Medical Association, and if other papers are to be believed (not arsed looking into it):

• American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1999)
• American Bar Association (1999, 2003)
• American Psychoanalytic Association (2002)
• Child Welfare League of America (2004)
• National Adoption Center (1998)
• National Association of Social Workers (2002)
• North American Council on Adoptable Children (1998)

How old were the kids in this study & where was it? My opinion doesn't really apply the same way in every culture/country. For example, in America I'd say the kid would fare better than an Irish kid in the same position & the Irish kid would fare better than a kid in Syria.

That doesn't appear to be the case.
"Sexual Orientation. A number of investigators have also studied a third component of sexual identity: sexual orientation (Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach, 1995; Bozett, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989; Gottman, 1990; Golombok et al., 1983; Green, 1978; Huggins, 1989; Miller, 1979; Paul, 1986; Rees, 1979). In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both gay fathers and lesbian mothers described themselves as heterosexual. Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents."

Well I'll accept that. As pointed out I wouldn't see it as an argument against gay adoption anyway.

Cato · 15-07-2008 11:12PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What exactly do you disagree with in my post? Or is it that you're just in the mood to insult people with no rational argument?

I thought it was pretty Damn obvious?

dr_manhattan · 16-07-2008 11:57AM

I thought it was pretty Damn obvious?

LMAO, this seems to be the lynchpin of arguments against:

1. it's obvious
2. you're only saying that cos you're a "liberal"
3. the kids would get slagged in school

As someone who grew up in a hardcore republican area with a father who was an ex british soldier, let me just say the "kids would get slagged in school" is a reason why:

* soldiers
* teachers
* politicians
* actors
* celebrities
* believers in evolution
* abortionists
* people who work on the sabbath
* musicians
* people who don't work on the sabbath
* jews
* moslems
* sikhs

...Ad infinitum should not be allowed to adopt. In otherwords, not a reason at all.

Fortunately the above list aren't in question, just the homosexuals.

It is not "obvious".

But at least we all seem to agree on wrestlers.

Cato · 16-07-2008 12:18PM

dr_manhattan wrote: »

LMAO, this seems to be the lynchpin of arguments against:

1. it's obvious
2. you're only saying that cos you're a "liberal"
3. the kids would get slagged in school

As someone who grew up in a hardcore republican area with a father who was an ex british soldier, let me just say the "kids would get slagged in school" is a reason why:

* soldiers
* teachers
* politicians
* actors
* celebrities
* believers in evolution
* abortionists
* people who work on the sabbath
* musicians
* people who don't work on the sabbath
* jews
* moslems
* sikhs

...Ad infinitum should not be allowed to adopt. In otherwords, not a reason at all.

Fortunately the above list aren't in question, just the homosexuals.

It is not "obvious".

But at least we all seem to agree on wrestlers.

read to what i was replying first before you go making your little assumptions, try not to get carried away;)

KTRIC · 16-07-2008 12:27PM

What about Lesbians adopting ?? Some might argue that two mothers are better than one. Why should it be any different for Gays to adopt ?

dr_manhattan · 16-07-2008 12:34PM

read to what i was replying first before you go making your little assumptions, try not to get carried away

Er... sorry but you're "assuming" I didn't.

I've read this whole thread.

You're a troll with nothing to say except "it's obvious".

Cato · 16-07-2008 12:40PM

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Er... sorry but you're "assuming" I didn't.

I've read this whole thread.

You're a troll with nothing to say except "it's obvious".

id post something proving you wrong buts whats the point in arguing with you, every time i see you you are hijacking a thread with your, frankly idiotic arguments that go round and round in circles.

The End.

nacho libre · 16-07-2008 05:24PM

I'm afraid i have to agree with those against.... The welfare of the child should always comes before ideology. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.

I'm not aware of many well-known openly gay GAA and Rugby players in this country.
futhermore you rarely see a lesbian or gay couple walking down the street and being affectionate.
I think you all are getting the point by now that there is still huge intolerance towards gay people. With this in mind adoption is about what is in the best interests of the child not of those seeking to adopt. I don't believe the child's best interests lie in being adopted by a gay couple when he/ she has to deal with the effects of this intolerance when interacting with his/her peers. Intolerance as i've said that is reinforced by society.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 16-07-2008 09:51PM

dr_manhattan wrote: »

LMAO, this seems to be the lynchpin of arguments against:

1. it's obvious
2. you're only saying that cos you're a "liberal"
3. the kids would get slagged in school

As someone who grew up in a hardcore republican area with a father who was an ex british soldier, let me just say the "kids would get slagged in school" is a reason why:

* soldiers
* teachers
* politicians
* actors
* celebrities
* believers in evolution
* abortionists
* people who work on the sabbath
* musicians
* people who don't work on the sabbath
* jews
* moslems
* sikhs

...Ad infinitum should not be allowed to adopt. In otherwords, not a reason at all.

Fortunately the above list aren't in question, just the homosexuals.

It is not "obvious".

But at least we all seem to agree on wrestlers.

That logic's already been argued against. Kids of gay adoption would have it worse than any of the above. Although, I must admit you possibly came very close with an ex-british army father in a republican area. Unless he was dishonorably discharged, in which case you'd be cooler than everybody else!

Quote:
read to what i was replying first before you go making your little assumptions, try not to get carried away

Er... sorry but you're "assuming" I didn't.

I've read this whole thread.

You're a troll with nothing to say except "it's obvious".

No, I think he was saying "it's obvious" in relation to one of his posts, not his entire reason for being against gay adoption. And you did get pretty carried away by saying that's what he meant.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I don't see how the potential for abuse is any different in foster care than it is for adoptive parents. There have been criminal prosecutions taken in respect of abuse suffered by adopted children in adoptive care so your point is meaningless, unless you can give a rational explanation as to why abuse happens in one but not the other.

I don't see how the potential for abuse is any different in heterosexuals than it would be for homosexuals. Which is what your post implies, and if I argued that against homosexuals I'd be labelled homophobic. So your point is meaningless, unless you can give a rational explanation as to why heterosexual parents would be more likely to abuse their children.

KTRIC wrote:

What about Lesbians adopting ?? Some might argue that two mothers are better than one. Why should it be any different for Gays to adopt ?

Well whenever I've said gays or homosexuals in this thread I was referring to male or female homosexual couples.

johnnyskeleton · 16-07-2008 10:18PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't see how the potential for abuse is any different in heterosexuals than it would be for homosexuals. Which is what your post implies, and if I argued that against homosexuals I'd be labelled homophobic. So your point is meaningless, unless you can give a rational explanation as to why heterosexual parents would be more likely to abuse their children.

My point is not that there is a greater risk of abuse in hetrosexual adoptive families than in homosexual ones, rather (although I acept that I have been rather terse and snappy of late, for which I apologise) that given the abuse and neglect that is possible with any adoptive couple, I think that issues of whether the child grows up confused as its sexuality or that it might be slagged in school are minor issues.

I'll put it like this; if a couple are demonstrably loving, caring and capable of taking care of a child's physical, mental and emotional well being, i.e. that they can take care of the child's welfare and will be a better alternative to foster care/orphanage/state care, then I don't think it really matters what sexual orientation they are. I can well imagine situations where there are gay couples who could demonstrably provide a better upbringing than a straight couple, so I don't think an outright ban on gay adoption is necessarily appropriate. Obviously if there is a choice between a straight and gay couple who could provide the same upbringing then I see no difficulty in favouring the straight couple (for the reasons outlined by other posters), but where the potential welfare is substantially different, the fact that one couple is gay should be a factor among several, not the determining factor.

I also believe, although I can't find statistics either way, that while are waiting lists to adopt babies, I'm not sure that many people want to adopt an older child, especially if that child comes from a broken home and/or has social problems. Thus, I don't think the logic that there are already too many hetro couples is sufficient to justify a blanket ban on gay adoption.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 17-07-2008 08:31PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

My point is not that there is a greater risk of abuse in hetrosexual adoptive families than in homosexual ones, rather (although I acept that I have been rather terse and snappy of late, for which I apologise) that given the abuse and neglect that is possible with any adoptive couple, I think that issues of whether the child grows up confused as its sexuality or that it might be slagged in school are minor issues.

I don't think the slagged in school is a minor issue, and I think most people not long out of school would be more likely to agree(5 years myself)

Though, I agree about the confusion issue, that's effectively a non-issue for me.

I'll put it like this; if a couple are demonstrably loving, caring and capable of taking care of a child's physical, mental and emotional well being, i.e. that they can take care of the child's welfare and will be a better alternative to foster care/orphanage/state care, then I don't think it really matters what sexual orientation they are. I can well imagine situations where there are gay couples who could demonstrably provide a better upbringing than a straight couple, so I don't think an outright ban on gay adoption is necessarily appropriate. Obviously if there is a choice between a straight and gay couple who could provide the same upbringing then I see no difficulty in favouring the straight couple (for the reasons outlined by other posters), but where the potential welfare is substantially different, the fact that one couple is gay should be a factor among several, not the determining factor.

I also believe, although I can't find statistics either way, that while are waiting lists to adopt babies, I'm not sure that many people want to adopt an older child, especially if that child comes from a broken home and/or has social problems. Thus, I don't think the logic that there are already too many hetro couples is sufficient to justify a blanket ban on gay adoption.

Well, this is actually an interesting set of points. I guess if there was a demand for parents I'd be more likely to come around to the idea. Though I would see it as a worst case scenario. Gay parents better than none. Though, the school issue would still be a big one. And I don't see dysfunctional kids taking too well to gay parents unfortunately.

johnnyskeleton · 17-07-2008 10:14PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

And I don't see dysfunctional kids taking too well to gay parents unfortunately.

No, but now that you mention it it's a great idea for a reality tv show.

djpbarry · 18-07-2008 02:18PM

nacho libre wrote: »

I'm not aware of many well-known openly gay GAA and Rugby players in this country.

Maybe no that well-known, but...

www.binghamcup.com

nacho libre wrote: »

...futhermore you rarely see a lesbian or gay couple walking down the street and being affectionate.

Seriously? Maybe in Mayo, but in Dublin, we have this.

I walk by at least 4 openly gay bars (that I'm aware of) on my way to and from work everyday and I honestly don't think the vast majority of people really give a toss (no pun intended) what's going on in or around them. I know a couple of gay people who think they're awfully special and would just love it they were offending people (Daffydd Thomas types), but the fact is nobody really gives a crap.

nacho libre · 18-07-2008 05:24PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe no that well-known, but...

www.binghamcup.com
Seriously? Maybe in Mayo, but in Dublin, we have this.

I walk by at least 4 openly gay bars (that I'm aware of) on my way to and from work everyday and I honestly don't think the vast majority of people really give a toss (no pun intended) what's going on in or around them. I know a couple of gay people who think they're awfully special and would just love it they were offending people (Daffydd Thomas types), but the fact is nobody really gives a crap.

Unfortunately, having lived in Dublin for a while, i saw with my own eyes that some people do in fact give a crap. i'm not convinced, outside of a parade, a gay couple being affectionate in public would not cause a reaction in some people. I don't recall ever seeing a gay or lesbian couple being affectionate on any of Dublin premiers streets.
while attitudes may have improved, the fact is, whether you want to admit it or not, there is still a great deal of intolerance towards gay people in Ireland.

djpbarry · 21-07-2008 02:54PM

nacho libre wrote: »

...while attitudes may have improved, the fact is, whether you want to admit it or not, there is still a great deal of intolerance towards gay people in Ireland.

I never said otherwise; there are indeed some incredibly intolerant people in this country. But there are also plenty of racists in this country too; does that mean that <insert ethnic minority here> should not be allowed to adopt?

Rev Hellfire · 21-07-2008 06:42PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I never said otherwise; there are indeed some incredibly intolerant people in this country. But there are also plenty of racists in this country too; does that mean that <insert ethnic minority here> should not be allowed to adopt?

What it means is that the possible impact such an adoption could have to the child should be placed before the use of a child as a campaign leverage by disaffected groups.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 21-07-2008 08:32PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I never said otherwise; there are indeed some incredibly intolerant people in this country. But there are also plenty of racists in this country too; does that mean that <insert ethnic minority here> should not be allowed to adopt?

This is a bit ridiculous. You can't simplify to the extent that you call racism & homophobia the same thing.

Gay adoption

Comments