Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

suicide_circus · 14-05-2012 11:19am

Fromthetrees wrote: »

What pisses me off is there is constant talk about non biological parents right to adopt a child yet every child born outside of marriage in this state has absolutely no legal relationship with his or her father and these rights have to be granted by the state, lets get the ****ing basics right here first.

Agreed. People are getting awfully precious about the right to adopt, where as in fact, no such right exists. The perceived inequity in these "rights" sets people off on rabid tangents.
Gay people already can and do adopt so lets put that to bed. The issue here is gay couples and this debate is, I suspect, a furtherance of the campaign to have gay marriage legitimized and recognised by the state, I just think vulnerable children are an unsuitable battleground. And I would say both sides of the argument are guilty in this regard.
I think gay couples should be able to adopt freely if they meet the criteria. Any studies that have been carried out on the subject of same sex parents impact on children are over an exceedingly short time scale versus the billions of children raised by female/male parenting teams over many millennia. As such, the "normalization" process of such family units is very much in its infancy and until we know more I would prefer to err on the side of caution and in a 50/50 scenario give precedence to a male/female parenting unit

Kev_2012 · 14-05-2012 11:20am

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Do you have gay men repeatly hitting on you a lot?

No but I've seen it happen!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 14-05-2012 11:24am

Kev_2012 wrote: »

No but I've seen it happen!

Then you're homophic. It's a fear and it's unrealistic. How often do you see gay mean REPEAEDLY hitting on straight men?

Kev_2012 · 14-05-2012 11:27am

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Then you're homophic. It's a fear and it's unrealistic. How often do you see gay mean REPEAEDLY hitting on straight men?

Not really. I don't want women I'm not attracted to hitting on me repeatedly either. Where's the problem?

cloud493 · 14-05-2012 11:27am

As long as their good parents, who are gonna love and care for the kid they want to adopt, it shouldn't matter what sexuality the parents are.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 14-05-2012 11:43am

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Not really. I don't want women I'm not attracted to hitting on me repeatedly either. Where's the problem?

Women are, as you said earlier, acknowledging your hetrosexuality.

CreepingDeath · 14-05-2012 11:44am

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Just because we have been doing something for millions of years doesn't mean we are doing it in the best way.

We haven't just being "doing something for millions of years", we've been doing it successfully for millions of years in countless species.
The gay community have only really come out of the closet and started demanding "rights" in the last 100 years or so and think they can rewrite the parenting books in the process. :rolleyes:

The majority of children are heterosexual, and should be brought up in a heterosexual environment where they see, day in day out, how a heterosexual domestic relationship works.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You also seem to gloss over the fact that kids have plenty of role models both inside and outside the family.

No, I understand that, but they don't see the 24x7 inner domestic workings of a normal heterosexual family from people outside the family.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The concept of gender roles is diluting with time. The archaic impression of men as the worker and women as "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" has long been eroded in many areas. If the sole argument supporting a bias against gay parenting is gender roles then it is on weaker ground than I thought.

As I mentioned before, you are focusing on gender roles diluting in the workplace, not the home. I even quoted the example of two parents working, that doesn't affect their different gender roles on the development of a child.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...one does not even need to know much science AT ALL to know the fact is the argument the user made on genetic diversity is ridiculous because from conception the child has already had all the genetic input it is going to get from the parents.

I said nothing about genetic diversity influencing the child, I was talking about gender diversity. A male and female role model.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would love to see any scientific citation from actual peer reviewed journals suggesting one needs women to nurture a child, teach it language, or have emotional connections. Or men to provide challenge, discipline or logic. Even if one could successfully show that one sex does tend towards any of these things more than the other, this does not in any way auto-conclude that therefore you need that sex to pass such things on to children.

Obviously minority groups try dragging up obscure "peer reviewed studies" to aid their agendas. Who funded those studies?
Funnily enough, I noticed an ad on Tv about eating eggs for breakfast helps weight loss, and it was funded by some Egg producers.

I think it's funny that for a community that promotes "diversity", ye think that an unnatural mono-gender couple can bring up a child as good as a normal male & female couple. The child will naturally find and accept a good balance of influences between the opposing male and female role models for themselves.

smash · 14-05-2012 11:50am

CreepingDeath wrote: »

We haven't just being "doing something for millions of years", we've been doing it successfully for millions of years in countless species.

You know that promiscuity without gender bias features heavily throughout history, across many races don't you? Look at the Roman and Greek empires for example. And it didn't do any harm.

munchkin_utd · 14-05-2012 11:56am

Theres only 4 or 5 irish kids given up for adoption every year.

So the question of gays adopting in the Irish context is quite irrelevant seeing as whether its legal or not to do so, the chances of succeeding are next to none anyhow.

If they want to go abroad and do so, fire away. A loving home of any type is better than sitting in a squalid orphanage in China or where-ever.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 14-05-2012 11:57am

CreepingDeath wrote: »

We haven't just being "doing something for millions of years", we've been doing it successfully for millions of years in countless species.
The gay community have only really come out of the closet and started demanding "rights" in the last 100 years or so and think they can rewrite the parenting books in the process. :rolleyes:

Never said we weren't. I'm not suggesting scrapping it, I'm suggesting expanding it. The second part reeks of closet homophobia. Why shouldn't a minorty group that is discriminated against stand up and demand rights? Would you say the same thing against blacks? If not, why not?

The majority of children are heterosexual, and should be brought up in a heterosexual environment where they see, day in day out, how a heterosexual domestic relationship works.

Evidence suggests the contrary. Studies cited below. People have posted such in this thread.

No, I understand that, but they don't see the 24x7 inner domestic workings of a normal heterosexual family from people outside the family.

As I mentioned before, you are focusing on gender roles diluting in the workplace, not the home. I even quoted the example of two parents working, that doesn't affect their different gender roles on the development of a child.

They don't need to. Again, if you were right, kids being raised by sinlge parents would be at risk also. Do you want to discriminate against them too? If not why not?

I said nothing about genetic diversity influencing the child, I was talking about gender diversity. A male and female role model.

Bollocks, for reasosn pointed out my pervious post.

Obviously minority groups try dragging up obscure "peer reviewed studies" to aid their agendas. Who funded those studies?
Funnily enough, I noticed an ad on Tv about eating eggs for breakfast helps weight loss, and it was funded by some Egg producers.

Oh, so because you don;t agree with it, it's automatically obscure and perr-reviewed? Unlike the ones commissioned by the Catholic Church, Mitt Romney and Fox News?

Here's one:

On average, children succeed most when raised by two parents rather than one. The parents' genders, however, make little difference in terms of a child's development ... The analysis of 81 parenting studies by sociologists Judith Stacey of New York University and Tim Biblarz of the University of Southern California [/B]

Source.

And another:

Twenty–three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5–44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes.

Source.

And I don't think the Universities of New York and Southern California and teh Scandanaivan Jounral of Psychology are obscure or peer-relationed organizations.

I think it's funny that for a community that promotes "diversity", ye think that an unnatural mono-gender couple can bring up a child as good as a normal male & female couple. The child will naturally find and accept a good balance of influences between the opposing male and female role models for themselves.

I think it's funny too. And hypocritical.

Seachmall · 14-05-2012 12:01pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Obviously minority groups try dragging up obscure "peer reviewed studies" to aid their agendas. Who funded those studies?

I'm not sure if you're trolling here or not because you appear to reject all peer reviewed studies in a swift generic statement about their funding without actually addressing any specific study and any possible bias it may have.

Essentially you're saying "I disagree with those findings thus I presume them to be nonobjective", the irony here doesn't need to be pointed out.

This one [PDF] I posted earlier was funded by The University of Cambridge for example.

Do they have a history pro-gay propaganda?

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-05-2012 12:05pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

We haven't just being "doing something for millions of years", we've been doing it successfully for millions of years in countless species.

So what? Correlation is not causation. Nor does doing something one way for a long time mean that this is the only or even best way to do it. There is a list of things children actually need for a healthy upbringing and just because one parental configuration can provide that... this does not mean another one can not. Single parenting for example has also been done quite successfully in many people and species for a long time too.

The issue with this discussion of gay parenting for me comes down to one simple thing really. If we list the things a child actually needs to be brought up healthily and well... is there anything on that list that is available to any one parental configuration that is somehow precluded another. The answer to this question from years of talking to people like yourself is a consistent "No".

CreepingDeath wrote: »

As I mentioned before, you are focusing on gender roles diluting in the workplace, not the home.

Nope. You mentioned work place. Not I. My comments about gender roles are about the roles as a whole, nothing to do with focusing on the work place. Gender roles as a whole are eroding and not just in the work place. There is no "roles" for genders to fit into any more, though I am agog to hear which ones you are imagining.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I said nothing about genetic diversity influencing the child, I was talking about gender diversity. A male and female role model.

Then you are not replying to me at all because what you replied to was about genetics. You are tripping over yourself and failing to keep up.

A user who was not you made a comment about genetic diversity. I replied to show why this was a ridiculous comment. Genetically parents have no input into their children after the point of conception. You replied to this and said I know nothing about biology.... but now you are saying you were not talking about genetics at all but gender diversity.

Again: The user said that genetic diversity was a good things and gay parents do not provide this. The point was that this is irrelevant because NO parents give genetic diversity to children during what we are actually talking about here.... their up bringing.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Obviously minority groups try dragging up obscure "peer reviewed studies" to aid their agendas. Who funded those studies?

So you have no citations to back up your claims and instead want to go on a conspiracy theory conversation about who funds what? No surprise here. You are just making things up now about the differences between men and women because you have no actual arguments to make on the subject. You are more than entitled to your own opinions. You are in no way entitled to your own facts.

CommanderC · 14-05-2012 12:31pm

Gary4279 wrote: »

Pretty good feeling i'm going to get destroyed for this but here goes...

I'm all for gay people being allowed to get married and have equal rights as straight couples and i'm sure within the next few years this will be achieved.

However, I don't think they should be allowed to adopt children. I just don't think it would be fair on the child to say for example have two fathers, and no mother figure. The child would more than likely be the subject of sever bullying in school.

I also think it could leave the child confused as to how relationships work and asking question as to why he/she has two dads where as everyone else has one mother and one father.

Now I know many will argue that its better for a child to be with a gay couple than in an orphanage but having looked into it a bit there are next to none in Ireland.

I know my argument may seem a bit backward but when I asked myself if I'd like to have had two father I definitely wouldn't have.

This thread has inspired me to stand up for every group who suffer prejudice because of the ignorance/fear/small mindedness/self centeredness/just plain selfishness of others.

THANKS GARY4279

!!!!!!!!

stanley 2 · 14-05-2012 12:35pm

CreepingDeath · 14-05-2012 12:37pm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Evidence suggests the contrary. Studies cited below. People have posted such in this thread.

I said that the majority of children are heterosexual and better raised by heterosexual parents to see first hand how a normal family works.
Children learn by watching the behaviour of others.

So what do you mean by "the contrary" specifically ?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Again, if you were right, kids being raised by sinlge parents would be at risk also. Do you want to discriminate against them too? If not why not?

Now you're going off topic.
A single parent is typically the biological parent and has every right to raise their child any way they see fit.
An adoption application, where both applicants have no biological link to the child is a completely different story altogether.

But to answer your off-topic question, a single person should definitely be discriminated against in an adoption application system.

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're trolling here or not because you appear to reject all peer reviewed studies in a swift generic statement about their funding without actually addressing any specific study and any possible bias it may have.

Essentially you're saying "I disagree with those findings thus I presume them to be nonobjective", the irony here doesn't need to be pointed out.

This one [PDF] I posted earlier was funded by The University of Cambridge for example.

Do they have a history pro-gay propaganda?

There's countless studies for and against practically all subjective assessments of a situation.
It's very easy to hand pick studies to back up your points, but the devil is in the details.

Let's take the one you picked.

Participants included 44 12- to 18-year-old adolescents parented by same-sex couples and 44
same-aged adolescents parented by opposite-sex couples

So the adoptees were all 12-18, teenagers who would have already had significant psychological development before that age.

I'm not going to try reading all that study now, but there's a significant difference between adopting a teenager and adopting a baby.
The psychological impact is much more significant when adopted from a baby.

smash · 14-05-2012 12:41pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I said that the majority of children are heterosexual and better raised by heterosexual parents to see first hand how a normal family works.

A normal family? seriously?

hooradiation · 14-05-2012 12:44pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I said that the majority of children are heterosexual and better raised by heterosexual parents to see first hand how a normal family works.

Oh dear.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-05-2012 12:48pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I said that the majority of children are heterosexual and better raised by heterosexual parents

We know that is what you are saying. We are inquiring into the basis for saying it. Repeating it clearly does not illuminate the basis. Nor does repeating it make it true.

The only basis you appear to be offering is that this is how most people have done it in the past with successful results. That however does not show that any other way available is not just as good, or even better. Appeals to tradition do little to establish that this tradition is the best option we have.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

But to answer your off-topic question, a single person should definitely be discriminated against in an adoption application system.

Contrary to what you might expect this is actually a very good argument in many countries FOR formalizing and recognizing gay couple adoption. The reason is that gay people are already allowed apply for adopting, but only as singles not as couples, in many countries.

Obviously only the people adopting are subject to the inquiries of the adoption agencies and as such if a gay couple want to adopt they can do so by one of them applying as a single person. This means that the whole picture is NOT being used to evaluate the destination home which is clearly not a good thing. The more information an adoption decision board has available the better and the current system obviously works against this.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

There's countless studies for and against practically all subjective assessments of a situation.

That is why one must cite ones sources so they can be discussed and evaluated. Certainly making up things and refusing to cite any source for them at all is a pretty weak approach. Comical too from someone who chose to open communication with me by saying in the first line "that's only your opinion."

Seachmall · 14-05-2012 12:57pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

but there's a significant difference between adopting a teenager and adopting a baby.

But there's nowhere in that study that suggests they were adopted as teenagers.

There's countless studies for and against practically all subjective assessments of a situation.
It's very easy to hand pick studies to back up your points, but the devil is in the details.

So hand pick one that supports your point...

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-05-2012 1:02pm

Seachmall wrote: »

But there's nowhere in that study that suggests they were adopted as teenagers.

Yeah it would appear he has a slight reading comprehension probably, possibly also linked to his admission that he was not going to bother really reading the study.

The study itself says the participants were 12 to 18. Not that they were adopted when they were 12 to 18. Not a subtle difference but one that appears to have escaped the user.

CreepingDeath · 14-05-2012 1:03pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We know that is what you are saying. We are inquiring into the basis for saying it. Repeating it clearly does not illuminate the basis.

I don't understand why I should have to spell out why a heterosexual couple are clearly better at bringing up a heterosexual child?
It's common sense.
Between them they have the combined and varied experience of both genders to teach the child.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The only basis you appear to be offering is that this is how most people have done it in the past with successful results.

I'm at work and not going to go trawling through science publications for studies to back up my point right now.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Contrary to what you might expect this is actually a very good argument in many countries FOR formalizing and recognizing gay couple adoption. The reason is that gay people are already allowed apply for adopting, but only as singles not as couples, in many countries.

That's not an argument for gay adoption, it's an argument to improve the application process. It's not the same thing.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is why one must cite ones sources so they can be discussed and evaluated. Certainly making up things and refusing to cite any source for them at all is a pretty weak approach.

So people here can't express an opinion without having a peer reviewed study behind them?
Trying to beat down opposing views with subjective hand-picked and narrowly defined studies is pretty lame too.

Sonics2k · 14-05-2012 1:08pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I don't understand why I should have to spell out why a heterosexual couple are clearly better at bringing up a heterosexual child?
It's common sense.
Between them they have the combined and varied experience of both genders to teach the child.

I can tell you first hand, that is completely wrong.

It's a myth that has been disproven time and time again.

bbam · 14-05-2012 1:08pm

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Theres only 4 or 5 irish kids given up for adoption every year.

So the question of gays adopting in the Irish context is quite irrelevant seeing as whether its legal or not to do so, the chances of succeeding are next to none anyhow.

If they want to go abroad and do so, fire away. A loving home of any type is better than sitting in a squalid orphanage in China or where-ever.

So we should have different standards applied to Irish born children and those foreign ones. ?
Also, I think you'll find that many, perhaps most countries will not allow same sex couples adopt children. What often happens is that one of the couple will apply as a single person. This work round only really works for female couples as again most of not all countries will not allow a single male adopt a child.

The big issue is to ensure thorough assessments are caried out on all persons going forward as adoptive parents. As for the original question I'm finding it hard to form a decision. I know that children learn hugely from environment and situation and will take their circumstances to be their "norm", I have some reservations with this norm as having gay parents but probably don't know enough hay couples to form a definite decision.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 14-05-2012 1:09pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I said that the majority of children are heterosexual and better raised by heterosexual parents to see first hand how a normal family works.
Children learn by watching the behaviour of others.

So what do you mean by "the contrary" specifically ?

Now you're going off topic.
A single parent is typically the biological parent and has every right to raise their child any way they see fit.
An adoption application, where both applicants have no biological link to the child is a completely different story altogether.

But to answer your off-topic question, a single person should definitely be discriminated against in an adoption application system.

If you ever do find a "normal family" plerase let me know - I've been on the planet 40 years and have yet to see one.

The contrary to "better than" is "no better than"

So in what way does a "bilogical" parent fill BOTH gender roles, which is what you argued? Also, NO adoptive parents are "biological". That' would kinda defeat the purpose...

Beyond that, your objections - like all the others, to be fair - have been proven to be based on nothing more than of outraged morality and closet homophobia. The sooner we can kick these "ideals" the the kerb and move on as a sepcies the better.

Seachmall · 14-05-2012 1:10pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

It's common sense.

"Common Sense".

14-05-2012 1:14pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

It's common sense.

If it's that obvious you should have no problem explaining why, instead of repeatedly insisting "it just is!!!"

So people here can't express an opinion without having a peer reviewed study behind them?
Trying to beat down opposing views with subjective hand-picked and narrowly defined studies is pretty lame too.

It sure beats "lalala it just IS it just IS"

You claim parents should be both gender because it's better for the kid
studies show that isn't true

now what?

OldNotWIse · 14-05-2012 1:18pm

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh dear.

Did you not know that gay is catchin'?

Incidentally, my best friend had a child outside of marriage and is now raising him by herself. Dont worry people! I've called social sevices and explained to them the dire environment this poor child is being raised in - only one gender role model! They assure me they are sending someone around to seize the kid immediately. In fact, they have already found a nice foster family with a mum, dad, two children called (would you believe) Anne and Barry and a dog, a truck and a lorry. Phew! What a lucky escape the poor mite had!

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-05-2012 1:21pm

Way to ignore my last reply to you by skipping to the one after it.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I don't understand why I should have to spell out why a heterosexual couple are clearly better at bringing up a heterosexual child?

You are on a discussion forum and you are surprised that having declared a position on that forum people might want to discuss it further? That is, to say the least, bizarre to me.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

It's common sense.

Ah the old "I have no back up for my position so I will just declare it to be "common sense" instead" trick. Nice.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Between them they have the combined and varied experience of both genders to teach the child.

The experience between the sexes is not as varied as you seem to want to imagine... or given your comments on gender roles... seem to want to make it. Nor are many of those experiences related to actually bringing up a child. Nor is there anything within those experiences that is somehow precluded one sex from teaching about the other. So your position might not be as "common sense" as you want to pretend.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I'm at work and not going to go trawling through science publications for studies to back up my point right now.

Whatever your excuse for not presenting evidence is... that does not change the fact you are not presenting it. No one is rushing your replies. This forum has been here for years and will likely remain for years. You do not have to reply instantly. Take your time, put together your arguments, citations and data and then post it when it is ready. One does little but harms ones own cause by rushing posts and refusing to back up ones positions.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

So people here can't express an opinion without having a peer reviewed study behind them?

You are, as I said, entitled to your opinion and to express it. You are not entitled to your own facts however and I am contesting the things you have made up and then presented as if they are fact not opinion.

NuMarvel · 14-05-2012 1:23pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I'm at work and not going to go trawling through science publications for studies to back up my point right now.

Yet, you've somehow found the time to not only read the thread, but to post replies on 5 different occasions since half nine. You're clearly not that busy.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 14-05-2012 1:26pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yet, you've somehow found the time to not only read the thread, but to post replies on 5 different occasions since half nine. You're clearly not that busy.

On top of that, three studies HAVE been povided.

hooradiation · 14-05-2012 1:27pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Did you not know that gay is catchin'?

Well, that would explain all that sodomy I've been having...

OldNotWIse · 14-05-2012 1:31pm

hooradiation wrote: »

Well, that would explain all that sodomy I've been having...

Lol

I must have inadvertently wandered into a gay household when I was a child and witnessed the "dynamics" of a homosexual couple and these images of "normal family life" must have completely over-rode the images of "normal family life" that I was exposed to at home because my parents are straight - but I somehow ended up gay :rolleyes:

later12 · 14-05-2012 1:48pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I don't understand why I should have to spell out why a heterosexual couple are clearly better at bringing up a heterosexual child?
It's common sense.
Between them they have the combined and varied experience of both genders to teach the child.

Sorry, no. That's not just an argument against gay adoption. That's an argument against single parents raising children too. In fact why only apply this to gender? For a fuller balance, why not force racially, religiously and ethnically heterogenous partnerships as well? Why stop at gender?

Your arguments are ridiculously ill thought out and i get the sense they are totally derived from prejudice as opposed to anything based on facts or rational thinking.

I'm at work and not going to go trawling through science publications for studies to back up my point right now.

Surprise surprise.

You will be doing it when you get a chance then, will you?

Duggy747 · 14-05-2012 1:52pm

What makes gay couples worse at raising kids than a single parent?

Sin City · 14-05-2012 1:53pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I don't understand why I should have to spell out why a heterosexual couple are clearly better at bringing up a heterosexual child?
It's common sense.
Between them they have the combined and varied experience of both genders to teach the child.

I'm at work and not going to go trawling through science publications for studies to back up my point right now.

That's not an argument for gay adoption, it's an argument to improve the application process. It's not the same thing.

So people here can't express an opinion without having a peer reviewed study behind them?
Trying to beat down opposing views with subjective hand-picked and narrowly defined studies is pretty lame too.

Actually I read a report in the journal of developmental psychology and it said that there is no disadvantage of having same sex to straight couples raising a child but they did say the lesbians (the same sex participants in the study) did engage with children in more creative and imaginative ways at play than did the straight sexed couples

c_man · 14-05-2012 1:56pm

Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

Yes, but only gay children.

Seachmall · 14-05-2012 1:59pm

c_man wrote: »

Yes, but only gay children.

Could a single family handle that much fabulous?

Sin City · 14-05-2012 2:04pm

Duggy747 · 14-05-2012 2:05pm

Seachmall wrote: »

Could a single family handle that much fabulous?

Not in THOSE jeans!

Pushtrak · 14-05-2012 2:06pm

The current set up now: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/adoption_and_unmarried_couples.html

Under the adoption legislation, it is possible for a single person to adopt if the Adoption Authority considers it desirable and it must regard the welfare of the child as its first and paramount consideration. This means that if you are living with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, you may apply to the Authority to adopt a child in your own right, intending to raise the child with your partner. However, your partner would have no legal rights in relation to the child. The fact you are in a relationship is relevant only when evaluating circumstances that might affect the child's welfare.

Annasopra · 14-05-2012 2:07pm

jimpump wrote: »

No i dont think they should adopt, i know children get bullied anyway but if they had gay parents that they would be really tormented by the bullies. I have 2 family members who are gay and they even say its not fare on the child

In that case

Black people shouldn't have children cause the kid might get bullied
Bald people shouldn't have children cause the kid might get bullied
People with dyslexia shouldn't have children cause the kid might get bullied
Poor people shouldn't have children
Rich people shouldn't have children
Boardsies shouldn't have children..........

blatantrereg · 14-05-2012 2:11pm

Yes of course. What a retarded question.

hm 286 "no"s, including eleven gay people. oh well. No point arguing with people who think things like that. It's a bit like explaining that global warming is not a myth, or that the holocaust really did happen. It's blatantly obvious already. If they were open to logic or reason they wouldn't hold the moronic views in the first place. Explanations of why they are wrong are redundant, and even give some sort of validation to their nonsense.

DB21 · 14-05-2012 2:12pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I said that the majority of children are heterosexual and better raised by heterosexual parents to see first hand how a normal family works.

That's funny. I was raised by heterosexual parents. Until I was 8. When my asshole of a dad walked out on me an my mam. Normal family, you say?

DB21 · 14-05-2012 2:13pm

Also, poll should have an option for Bisexual people, seeing as I identify with neither of the listed sexualities.

OldNotWIse · 14-05-2012 2:24pm

mango salsa wrote: »

In that case

Black people shouldn't have children cause the kid might get bullied
Bald people shouldn't have children cause the kid might get bullied
People with dyslexia shouldn't have children cause the kid might get bullied
Poor people shouldn't have children
Rich people shouldn't have children
Boardsies shouldn't have children..........

And small-minded biggots should not have children in case their children bully other children who are perceived as "different"

Pushtrak · 14-05-2012 2:27pm

Feck, humanity is a failed experiment lets just all stop having children.

OldNotWIse · 14-05-2012 2:29pm

jimpump wrote: »

No i dont think they should adopt, i know children get bullied anyway but if they had gay parents that they would be really tormented by the bullies. I have 2 family members who are gay and they even say its not fare on the child

Then it must be true

Sorry I forgot that gay people are not only allowed to speak for everyone else but are also the authority on all gay issues :rolleyes:

cowzerp · 14-05-2012 2:29pm

mango salsa wrote: »

In that case

Black people shouldn't have children cause the kid might get bullied
Bald people shouldn't have children cause the kid might get bullied
People with dyslexia shouldn't have children cause the kid might get bullied
Poor people shouldn't have children
Rich people shouldn't have children

Ridonculous

These people are meant to have babies and are capable of it, Gay people are physically incapable of having babys together so can't be grouped the same as Black people!

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied, all people can be bullied but this greatly increases the chances.

I'm not anti gay-i really don't care what people do inside there own rooms but to say having gay parents is not odd is just wrong.

Pushtrak · 14-05-2012 2:32pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Ridonculous

These people are meant to have babies and are capable of it, Gay people are physically incapable of having babys together so can't be grouped the same as Black people!

I would imagine that infertile couples might eloquently call the criteria above as "ridonculous".

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied, all people can be bullied but this greatly increases the chances.

Society at one time did bully on the above grounds a lot more than today; and it still happens today. It isn't an argument for... anything.

Sonics2k · 14-05-2012 2:32pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Ridonculous

These people are meant to have babies and are capable of it, Gay people are physically incapable of having babys together so can't be grouped the same as Black people!

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied, all people can be bullied but this greatly increases the chances.

I'm not anti gay-i really don't care what people do inside there own rooms but to say having gay parents is not odd is just wrong.

Ugh, at least go back a few pages and read some of the responses.

I was raised by a gay couple, and was not bullied for it. I was bullied quite a lot because I had bad teeth and all the usual crap.

Kids get bullied for anything, being ginger, having glasses, no mum/dad, being fat, and so on.

Let's not try pulling this "BUT THEY'LL BE BULLIED" shíte anymore please. It's been disproven a thousand times.

Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

Comments