Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

Naikon wrote: »

Why?

I'd prefer no parents than gay parents because the amount of bullying I got for only having one parent was unbelievable I was seriously attacked 3 times I think in my last year of primary school. I can't imagine what it would be like with gay parents.

The dinosaurs followed a model which had them as the dominant species on earth for circa 160M years which is roughly 50 times longer than our dominance

I firmly believe there extinction was related to them ignoring the rights for gay adoption.

Also the model of two married parents raising a child is relatively new ,historically children were raised by the tribe and then extended family and the village.

Only landed people got married until a couple of hundred years ago

Poll lacks the option:

"I don't care about people's sexuality as long as they bring a child into a happy caring home."

snyper wrote: »

2 good parents is always better than 1 single one.

Sexual orientation is irrelevant - unless they're pedo's - but gay or straight makes no difference.

Children need security love and direction.

This, in a nutshell.

snyper wrote: »

2 good parents is always better than 1 single one.

Sexual orientation is irrelevant - unless they're pedo's - but gay or straight makes no difference.

Children need security love and direction.

So its okay if they are hetrosexual pedos but not homosexual pedos! or are you classing pedo as an orientation

The fact that this has to even be asked in 2011 is saddening. I'm not so much for gay rights as I am for human rights. If two people, be they same sex or otherwise, want to adopt they should be allowed -if and only if- they can provide the child with a happy, loving and safe home. Likewise civil partnership is insulting, same sex marrige should be allowed, no ifs, buts, or maybes!!

I grew up in a single family home and to echo one of the other posters it would have been a hell of a lot worse for us had my mother stayed with this man who was a phycially and sexually abusive drunkard. When I hear this nonesense about the "traditional family" being the best for kids I want to vomit! It makes me so very angry! My mother loves us, cared for us, protected us, she was the one and the only one who wanted us. I turned out as normal as any other human being. I have no daddy issues, or problems with men.

I look at my best friend who grew up in the "traditional family" environment. She is a wonderful human being but the girl is off the rails like. In fact all of them were wild for years. By the logic of some people on here I'm the one who should have all the issues and she is the one who should be "normal".

Never once in my life was i bullied for a lack of father. I remember being bullied by a girl who used to mock me all the time because i had chicken legs and knobbly knees FFS!!!

My main point in all of this: as long as you have even one person who will love you and care for you, keep a roof over your head and food in your belly then sexual orientation is not nor should be an issue. There are so many children across the globe who will never know love and security. Children being raised by heterosexuals who abuse them, children living destitute on the streets of impoverished countries with no one to look after them.....I don't care if you were beamed down by the freaking mothership! as long as you can care for and love a child that is all that matters to me. And I can thank my single mother for that acceptance of others. GO Ma!!:p

Sorry for the long post.

montane wrote: »

With lesbian parenting and the absence of a father figure, it is simple logic that a father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t.

Similarly girls also require a father who can not be easily replaced by a pumped-up lesbian on testosterone supplements. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children is an unknown, it is unethical to test this unknown on innocent children. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or four mothers, or, you fill in the blank....

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

A) I'll ask the same question of you that I've asked when other have brought up this point about the absence of role models: If male AND female role models are so important to a child's development, what are you doing to eliminate single parent families? Shotgun weddings? Interrupting divorce proceedings? Forcing separated couples to live in the same house? Or do you just reserve your energy for when same sex couples involved?

Re the part I've highlighted in bold.... I'm bordering on speechless at that one! I don't know if I should rant and rave about your barely disguised misogyny (e.g. you don't seem to think that the lack of a female role model has any detrimental affect), dismiss it out of hand unless you can back that up with some concrete indisputable proof, or just sit here slack jawed at the possibility that you might actually believe what you typed.

Spread wrote: »

Hi histories. I'm glad that everything has worked out great for you. Both you and your Mum deserve praise for this. Can you tell us when your Dad's drunken and abusive behaviour started? Were there any manifestations before the marriage/partnership?

Not sure if you intended it but your post reads in a condesending manner and a bit Dr. Philish. I was simply using something that happened in my life to highlight why this notion of the "traditional" family is utter bollocks. I have no intention of going into all the personal details.

Biggins wrote: »

I'd rather have two people (or more) in my life that deeply cared for me and loved me - than none at all.

I think that's a very good point, although I'm a bit torn on the matter to be fair, I don't doubt that the couple would love and care for the child, I just think it doesn't seem quite right, and I mean no offense to anyone by that.