Jump to content

Welcome to Green Day Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples

Debate

  • Please log in to reply
257 replies to this topic

#1
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England
Well we haven't had a good debate in ages.... (the abortion thread does not count; that's just a poo slinging match)...

Summary: Should gay couples be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals in adopting children?


Context

At present, the world and individual countries are divided with regard to adoption as to other areas of gay rights. In vast parts of the world adoption by same-sex couples is still illegal or it is not acknowledged by the law. In Europe same-sex adoption is legal in the UK, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Iceland, Sweden and Norway. Around the rest of the world there is only a handful of places where same-sex adoption is acknowledged as legal. In the USA most states have not posted a stance on this topic, however it is illegal in Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Utah (in Utah, a single person can adopt - regardless of sexual orientation - if they are not currently cohabiting with someone of the same sex). Some states have a legal status when it comes to same-sex adoption.

(Info on legality status here

Here are some of the pros and cons about the argument

Pros -


1. Society is changing, and the traditional idea of the nuclear family with married mother and father is no longer the only acceptable alternative. The reason that many countries are beginning to award legal rights to gay couples is because the stability of such relationships is now recognised. There is no reason, therefore, why such couples cannot provide a stable and loving upbringing for children.


2. Nature has shown in many species that, when one or both parents die, an uncle or aunt frequently takes on the child-rearing role.

3. Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and their upbringing will not be affect their sexuality. Attempting to suppress this genetic predisposition has resulted in great misery for many people. Rather, we should accept this and look to embrace all gay people fully – which must include celebrating gay role models, especially as responsible parents.

4. In many cases, children are currently being reared responsibly by gay couples, where one of the partners is the biological parent. Allowing adoption by others merely confers a legal status onto an informal, working family model.

5. The homophobia in some sections of society is wrong and should be fought at every opportunity. Couples from ethnic minorities are not barred from adoption even in racist areas. Only through the full inclusion of LGBT people in society can we hope to overcome prejudice.


Cons -

1. The traditional nuclear family is still an ideal that should be clung to. Where its breakdown is inevitable, a close substitute, with maternal and paternal influences, is the only alternative. Evolution and nature has shown that the natural development of the young is aided by both these influences. Research in the US (Univ. of Illinois Law Review, 1997) finds that children raised in homosexual households are significantly more likely to be gay themselves.


2. While exceptions occur, the norm in nature is that offspring are nurtured by mother and father. To legally allow adoption by gay couples is to encourage what is an unnatural upbringing.

3. A child’s primary role models are his or her parents. Bringing a heterosexual child up in a gay household gives them a distorted view of a minority sexuality, just as a girl brought up by two men would fail to benefit from a feminine influence.


4. While the law should not penalise gay relationships, it also exists to encourage the nuclear family as the ideal for child-raising. Just as married couples receive tax benefits and unmarried mothers may suffer cuts in welfare, legal prohibition of adoption by gays is a natural step towards this ideal.

5. Homophobic language and behaviour is still common in society. Placing a child too young to have an opinion of their own in the care of a gay couple exposes them to this prejudice, and subjects them to ridicule or violence. Whatever ideal we might have, the psychological and physical welfare of the child must come first.



Now this debate is not about being gay in general, please try to stick to the topic of adoption by LGBT couples. What are your thoughts?
  • Jozinbrejl likes this

#2
D-viant

D-viant
  • Little One

  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Joined Oct 29, 2011
  • 15 rep
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hell
Well, it's better to have a functional family than none. Being straight or gay doesn't matter when it comes to being a family role model. I highly doubt any of us had to openly discuss what our parents did in their bedroom.
Should gay couples be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals in adopting children?
That's question you have to ask children that are up for adoption. See if any of 'em care about it.

#3
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England

Well, it's better to have a functional family than none. Being straight or gay doesn't matter when it comes to being a family role model. I highly doubt any of us had to openly discuss what our parents did in their bedroom.
Should gay couples be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals in adopting children?
That's question you have to ask children that are up for adoption. See if any of 'em care about it.


That's quite a black and white answer? Is it really that simple?

I don't think sex really has anything to do with it. It's more how people behave as a family unit, how one person is perceived by another etc...

#4
Trotsky

Trotsky
  • I sought my image in the scorching glass

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,155 posts
  • Joined Sep 23, 2006
  • 7,161 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

Cons -

1. The traditional nuclear family is still an ideal that should be clung to. Where its breakdown is inevitable, a close substitute, with maternal and paternal influences, is the only alternative. Evolution and nature has shown that the natural development of the young is aided by both these influences. Research in the US (Univ. of Illinois Law Review, 1997) finds that children raised in homosexual households are significantly more likely to be gay themselves.


2. While exceptions occur, the norm in nature is that offspring are nurtured by mother and father. To legally allow adoption by gay couples is to encourage what is an unnatural upbringing.

3. A child’s primary role models are his or her parents. Bringing a heterosexual child up in a gay household gives them a distorted view of a minority sexuality, just as a girl brought up by two men would fail to benefit from a feminine influence.


4. While the law should not penalise gay relationships, it also exists to encourage the nuclear family as the ideal for child-raising. Just as married couples receive tax benefits and unmarried mothers may suffer cuts in welfare, legal prohibition of adoption by gays is a natural step towards this ideal.

5. Homophobic language and behaviour is still common in society. Placing a child too young to have an opinion of their own in the care of a gay couple exposes them to this prejudice, and subjects them to ridicule or violence. Whatever ideal we might have, the psychological and physical welfare of the child must come first.


Bryony as usual you've done as an excellent job preparing a balanced debate. :) I will start by countering the arguments against which you've presented, as the side I'm on should be pretty obvious to any GDCer who remotely knows me, haha. So, we begin.

1. Single parents do not qualify as a 'close substitute' for a nuclear family either. I am not sure whether a same sex couple or a single heterosexual parent is theoretically 'closer' to a heterosexual couple raising children, but it must be acknowledged there are a number of unusual situations in which children are raised, and there is no reason same-sex parents should have an especially bright spotlight on them.

Next, I would argue the statistical difference between gay children raised by gay couples numbering more than gay children raised by straight couples, is actually just a higher coming out rate.

2. To legally allow gay adoption encourages in the case of loving, stable, and competent would be parents, the best possible option for the child at stake. Prohibiting any form of adoption by anyone does not increase the number of children with both their biological parents. So even if that is the ideal, it is irrelevant.

3. I already pointed out that I do not believe sexuality is defined by the home one is raised in, though even if it were, the fact exists that as a consequence of biology and nature, heterosexuals always have and always will outnumber homosexuals. Even if every child raised in a same-sex household theoretically became a homosexual, there would still be a decisive heterosexual majority worldwide. In terms of traditional gender roles outside of sexuality - I don't mind those fading away either. A male rejecting traditional masculine culture, or a female rejecting traditional female culture, does not inhibit their ability to benefit themselves society through their intelligence, talents and motivation.

4. The law does not have to exist child-rearing, and is quite frankly ineffective at doing so. China's population continued to grow steadily, even since the 'one-child policy' was put into place. Meanwhile, Russia's population has declined for decades, and despite every financial benefit for families to have children, their deathrate still overshadows their abnormally low birthrate. While I will not argue against tax benefits for married couples, I believe using them as an incentive to motivate marriages should be avoided, as should cutting welfare. Financial benefits regarding families should always exist to the benefit of the already existing children, and to no other goal.

5. The same argument could have been used throughout history and many places worldwide against allow interracial couples to marry and subsequently have children. While non-bigots may have good intentions, such as "avoiding psychological harm to children", they are simply wrong. I believe a child who is exposed to bigotry may grow into the adult who fights it. You simply cannot hold victims of institutionalized hatred responsible for being hated. We cannot shelter children from what is wrong with the world, they must be prepared to face it. And heterosexual parents, even with heterosexual children, even they have a human obligation to teach their kids what homophobia is and to fight against it. The first and foremost way to take a stand for equality is to be unafraid and proud.
  • Dylan. and Vesper like this

#5
D-viant

D-viant
  • Little One

  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Joined Oct 29, 2011
  • 15 rep
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hell
Actually it's that simple. Just people make a fucking big deal of it. If you read Torah, Bible or Qoran you'd see that the single thing in common is -> Being happy. But people twist that up and make it retarded some times (and that's why this question has to be asked).
I don't think you understood me the first time when I've said it, if kid is happy with its dads or moms, then leave it be.
Also "I don't think sex really has anything to do with it. It's more how people behave as a family unit, how one person is perceived by another etc...", then why did you ask a question about adoption when you're talking about living in the same sex "family". :mellow:

#6
Brigister

Brigister
  • I'm a mess and you're a work of art

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,541 posts
  • Joined Aug 30, 2011
  • 1,192 rep
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Venice, Italy
It's just not so big of a deal. I think people is just too deep-rooted in their "old values" to understand that two men/two women can do as good as what a eterosexual couple can, in educating their son/daughter. The only problem that a child with gay parents are those people who don't accept adoption of children by same sex couples because they're the only ones that can make feel the child uncomfortable with his familiar situation by teasing him and making him feel like a misfit because he's "different". If being homosexual wasn't still considered something unnatural by people, there would be no problem. May sound obvious, but that's just the way it is.

#7
HeißblütigerPinguin

HeißblütigerPinguin
  • Insomniac

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Joined Jun 12, 2010
  • 166 rep
  • Age:19
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Dove ti porta il cuore
pro. There is no reason to deny same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals have.

And also in response to the OP contra Nr. 4: You cannot privilege someone without discriminating others

#8
pasalaska

pasalaska
  • Dearly Beloved

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,721 posts
  • Joined May 01, 2006
  • 2,961 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Perth, Australia/Ottawa, Canada
This guy:


There was a male gay couple back home that adopted a child and there was a massive outcry from many people. Thing is, and what the public didn't know (I knew someone who worked for the Dept. of Child Protection) is that the child that was adopted was severely mentally handicapped and the biological parents of that child had met with the couple. This kid, who's going to need round-the-clock care for the rest of its life now has two loving, caring and strong (as in, physically - an adult who's mental capacity is that of a baby needs a lot of physical work) parents - how can that ever be a bad thing? I heard one of the kids in my school say 'if I was that kid I'd kill myself'. I just wanted to slap him so badly.
  • ScreamsInSilence815 likes this

#9
ConfirmPassword

ConfirmPassword
  • My imaginary friend thinks you're stupid

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,264 posts
  • Joined Mar 27, 2010
  • 860 rep
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Denmark
It's not legal in Denmark? :mellow:

The only problem I see with gay adoption is that the child could be bullied. On the other hand children sadly can be bullied because of everything.
I don't really believe in, you need femine influence from a mom if you're a girl and the other way around if you're a boy. Children are getting raised by single parrents of the other gender right? As far as I know it doesn't make them less masculine or feminine. It's true that if you're girl, you may need to talk with your mom about "girls stuff" but I don't think it makes that a reason to make it illegal.

Neither do I believe, that a child raised by a homosexual couple would have bigger chances to be homosexual him or her self. I believe it's something you are born with. We see children raised in homophobic families being gay. If there were a bigger chance I wouldn't see that as a problem either. More couples who can't get their own child = More couples who want to adopt = More kids without parrents getting parrents :happy:
And as John already pointed out there would still be a decisive heterosexual majority worldwide
  • Billie Hoe is my hero and classof12 like this

#10
LetItBeHappy

LetItBeHappy
  • Even in death may you be triumphant!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,374 posts
  • Joined Dec 03, 2008
  • 155 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Concepción, Chile
I don't come from a traditional family, my mom raised me not with my father, but with my grandparents, and my grandpa was the one that took care of me during most of my early childhood, when my mom and grammy worked, and I can tell that I know many people coming from a traditional family that are way more screwed up than me, so I've always considered that the "kido needs father and mother" argument is invalid. At school we had to do some essays on the gay marriage, and the only flaw I could possibly find on them adopting, is that the kid could be discriminated by his/her peers, which could be easily fixed if people were taught against homophobia from the very beginning. As usual, the solution should start in education :)

#11
Kayfabe

Kayfabe
  • syllables, killaholic

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,241 posts
  • Joined Jun 20, 2009
  • 2,804 rep
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:To'hajiilee
No matter your views on homosexuality and LGBT rights and whatever, it has to be blindingly obvious that being in the care of two mentally stable, financially well off people that are able to provide love and care, will be better for a child than staying in the absolutely rotten state-run foster system EVERY TIME.

I do not see the room for dispute, on that fact alone.

The only problem I see with gay adoption is that the child could be bullied.

and this is such a bullshit cop-out, too. give me a stable home and teasing over being popular and neglected by the system every time. every damn time. perspective is needed here.

#12
captain peroxide

captain peroxide
  • Unbowed. Unbent. Unbroken.

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,770 posts
  • Joined Feb 20, 2007
  • 6,391 rep
  • Age:23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sunspear
Rockin' debate, excellent starting post. Kudos to you. However...

1. Research in the US (Univ. of Illinois Law Review, 1997) finds that children raised in homosexual households are significantly more likely to be gay themselves.


First of all, so what? Second of all, maybe those children just feel more comfortable about coming out as gay, since they grew up in a household where neither parent was shoving homophobic bullshit down their throat?
  • Dylan., chewychorizo, Izzard and 1 other like this

#13
ConfirmPassword

ConfirmPassword
  • My imaginary friend thinks you're stupid

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,264 posts
  • Joined Mar 27, 2010
  • 860 rep
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Denmark

and this is such a bullshit cop-out, too. give me a stable home and teasing over being popular and neglected by the system every time. every damn time. perspective is needed here.

First of all it's not bullshit at all. There are homophobic people in this world, and I think there's many bullies who find children of gay parrents an easy target, because is something very different and weird for many people. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think

Second, I never said it was a reason to make it illegal. I deffintly think it should be legal! If it's more common it's also more acceptable for more people

#14
Cat C

Cat C
  • Criminal of Thought

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,557 posts
  • Joined Oct 11, 2010
  • 3,725 rep
  • Age:21
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
I really hope in ten years time all the conflict and debate around subjects like this will be as obsolete as arguing about whether women should be allowed the vote. If a mother dies in childbirth, and the baby is then raised by their father alone, would anyone question the gender roles in that family to the point where the home of the child is in jeopardy? Similarly, if a child was adopted, and their adoptive father died, leaving the baby to be raised only by the adoptive mother, then still no questions would be asked. The mother is not a blood relative of the child, but she would still be able to bring it up without any interruption of severe complains about gender issues, and without any question.

I think the point here is that homosexuality is still a bit of a taboo area (for lack of a better word). I know we're not supposed to argue about that alone, but it seems impossible not to leave it out. Unfortunately, there are still people who are ignorant of human nature and that is why the issue is raised, not because of issues regarding gender roles or how we should strive to meet the ideals of a Nuclear Family. I say our generation should create a Solar Family to aspire to - a family who holds no prejudice, and look, it's environmentally friendly!

It makes me happy to know we probably won't get any posts completely against the idea of adoption by same sex couples on here. There's hope for the future.

#15
Dylan.

Dylan.
  • And Don't You Fucking Wear It Out

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,844 posts
  • Joined Sep 08, 2007
  • 573 rep
  • Age:19
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix
Fuck. I have to eat first. I'll be back to debate this in depth later on.

Advertising

#16
Kayfabe

Kayfabe
  • syllables, killaholic

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,241 posts
  • Joined Jun 20, 2009
  • 2,804 rep
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:To'hajiilee

First of all it's not bullshit at all. There are homophobic people in this world, and I think there's many bullies who find children of gay parrents an easy target, because is something very different and weird for many people. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think

Second, I never said it was a reason to make it illegal. I deffintly think it should be legal! If it's more common it's also more acceptable for more people

I know you were just providing it as an example, not agreeing with it. And I was also quoting you as an example.

I'll tell you why it's bullshit: bullies are weak people that seek out any differences in a person to make fun of them. If it's not because you have gay parents, it's because you're short, or because you talk funny, or because you're overweight. The one thing we don't do is modify what we do to accommodate the bullies, that's bass ackwards.

#17
classof12

classof12
  • Supermodel Robot

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts
  • Joined Aug 08, 2011
  • 117 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Right behind you!
I totally think they should be able to adop childrem. I mean, we all think (or, at least, the majority of today's society) that every single man/woman, have the same rights because WE ARE THE SAME. Everybody deserves to have the same rights, if we don't allow homosexual people to adop chidrem (something that heterosexual couples can do) we're saying that they don't have the same rights, which means that they aren't humans, which is obvioulsy wrong. We are the same, that means that we have the same rights.

#18
Emilie.

Emilie.
  • That's a smashing blouse you have on

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,447 posts
  • Joined Jun 18, 2010
  • 4,098 rep
  • Age:17
  • Gender:Other
  • Location:Brisbane

5. Homophobic language and behaviour is still common in society. Placing a child too young to have an opinion of their own in the care of a gay couple exposes them to this prejudice, and subjects them to ridicule or violence. Whatever ideal we might have, the psychological and physical welfare of the child must come first.


I did a speech in English class last year on this topic. When I did, this was the only con that had me thinking. If one day I had a girlfriend and we decided to adopt (or just have a kid in general), the only thing I would be worried about would be the fact that my kid would most likely get picked on and bullied because of it.
Then again, not allowing gay couples the right to adopt is not helping to stop that hatred at all. It'd just be giving up, almost like telling them it's okay to do that to people.
As Iolanda said before, I'd want to be living with two parents who love me. That's the most important thing. The bullying comes second to that.
  • ConfirmPassword likes this

#19
Dylan.

Dylan.
  • And Don't You Fucking Wear It Out

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,844 posts
  • Joined Sep 08, 2007
  • 573 rep
  • Age:19
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix
The first thing I have noticed about this thread is the lack of dissent on the subject of gay rights. First and foremost, that is a good thing. Green Day fans in general have always had a very accepting and tolerant attitude towards minorities. That is part of the reason I have felt so at home here on GDC. The only downside is the lack of very interesting discussion in debates such as these. While I'm sure those few homophobes who do visit the Community will post in here before long, it is usually few and far between.

The United States of America was founded on the principle that all men, created equal, should have the same opportunities to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Democracy, at its core, is a government of the people. Some people are straight, some are gay; some are men, some are women; some are white, some are black. Regardless of our status as minorities, genetically, we are all people. Thus, our government exists to secure the rights of all people.

To a bigoted person, only those who they feel are morally upright deserve to bask in the benefits of democracy. To a bigot, a gay person is going against the laws of God, and because of these crimes, they should suffer the consequences. In past times, this was usually some type of physical punishment, ranging from imprisonment to death. Nowadays, the more politically correct and commonly accepted answer among bigots is to claim that gay people shouldn't be punished. However, their way of life is inferior to the traditional heterosexual household. "There is nothing wrong with being gay. You just aren't allowed to share the same rights to marriage or family life that we are."

There are various fallacies to this frame of thought. First of all, morals are not dictated by the Constitution or the law. For instance, one could argue that lying is not morally right, however there is no law against lying in the United States unless it directly harms a person, or infringes upon another person's Constitutional rights. Pedophilia, however disgusting, is not illegal in the United States. You can not be arrested for being a pedophile. Molesting children on the other hand, is illegal because of the psychological harm it causes the minor. The laws of this country generally follow this same standard of Constitutionality.

Marriage is one area of the law that is not protected by this same standard. Same-Sex marriage is not recognized by the federal government. The question is constantly raised of why. It's a very simple answer however. It does not matter that no one is harmed by two people of the same gender marrying. The bigotry of the powers that be trumps the basis of our law. As time has gone on, more rights have been given to homosexuals that did not exist just years prior.

Adoption is an even more complicated issue to argue, because the opposition can demonstrate their bigotry more openly. On the subject of adoption, one could argue that the ones harmed by same-sex adoption are the children. There are various religious and conservative pseudo-scientists and psychologists who preach about how it is horribly damaging for a child to be raised in a household without one mother and one father. Some politicians such as Rick Santorum have gone as far as to say it would be better for a child to be raised by a single parent than by two parents of the same sex.

So, honestly, which is it? Is it that a child needs two parents of diverse gender, or is it that a child would be damaged by exposure to gay parents? The truth of the science is that a child requires a loving parent or parents, who will care for him or her, and raise him or her to be a mature functioning adult. It does not matter how many, or what gender or what sexuality. The child does not discern the difference. All the child knows is that he or she is happy. That is the bottom line of discussion.

Does it make it more difficult raising a child by yourself? Absolutely. Is it still difficult to raise a child in a heterosexual marriage? Yes, course. It is always going to be difficult to raise a child, and a gay couple is not the exception. They may even be subject to more obstacles because of their sexual orientation. Children are going to grow up and make their own choices, but sexuality is not one of them. Having gay parents won't turn you gay, and even if it did, that doesn't matter. If nothing else, having a minority family instills the values of respect and tolerance in you, so that you can teach your children about those values.

This country is in a state of evolution on the subject of equality in marriage and adoption. Our democracy does not consist of merely the exclusive group of white, straight, men and women who believe in Jesus. There is a vast variety of minorities who are just as entitled to happiness as anyone else. The sooner we understand that fact, the sooner we can focus on more important matters that ail our nation.

#20
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England

Actually it's that simple. Just people make a fucking big deal of it. If you read Torah, Bible or Qoran you'd see that the single thing in common is -> Being happy. But people twist that up and make it retarded some times (and that's why this question has to be asked).
I don't think you understood me the first time when I've said it, if kid is happy with its dads or moms, then leave it be.
Also "I don't think sex really has anything to do with it. It's more how people behave as a family unit, how one person is perceived by another etc...", then why did you ask a question about adoption when you're talking about living in the same sex "family". http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...


Because physical sex does have nothing to do with it????? I don't care what happens behind closed doors? I don't see how sex in a physical sense has anything to do with the topic at hand? And I'm not talking about gender (are we confusing the issue??)


- Okay, so I know someone who works in child services dealing with removing children from abusive households and placing them in care etc. He is against same-sex adoption even though he is constantly immersed in "family-life" and what is best for a child. He is not a homophobe either. He says it's because a child, to have a fully rounded up bringing, needs the female influence of the mother and a male influence from the father. Thoughts?

First of all, so what? Second of all, maybe those children just feel more comfortable about coming out as gay, since they grew up in a household where neither parent was shoving homophobic bullshit down their throat?


Or maybe.... and I don't quite know how to put this without being yelled at.... they see that as being the way to do things in every circumstance? Do they develop a different perspective because of their upbringing?


P.S - I am clearly playing the devil's advocate here. I am fully pro-same-sex adoption.

#21
Trotsky

Trotsky
  • I sought my image in the scorching glass

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,155 posts
  • Joined Sep 23, 2006
  • 7,161 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

Or maybe.... and I don't quite know how to put this without being yelled at.... they see that as being the way to do things in every circumstance? Do they develop a different perspective because of their upbringing?


The question is not if their perspective is different, I'm sure it is changed in some way. But is it affected in a negative way? There is no proof of the sort. The burden of proof is on the believer, until there is proof being raised by a same sex couple has negative effects, it must be assumed there are none.

#22
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England

This country is in a state of evolution on the subject of equality in marriage and adoption. Our democracy does not consist of merely the exclusive group of white, straight, men and women who believe in Jesus. There is a vast variety of minorities who are just as entitled to happiness as anyone else. The sooner we understand that fact, the sooner we can focus on more important matters that ail our nation.


But for some reason, in your nation, much more so (in my opinion than the UK), has a much more "un-adjustable" population. There are lots more people with extreme beliefs who are very unwilling to change that etc.... so I think "understand[ing] that fact" might take a little longer than expected...

The question is not if their perspective is different, I'm sure it is changed in some way. But is it affected in a negative way? There is no proof of the sort. The burden of proof is on the believer, until there is proof being raised by a same sex couple has negative effects, it must be assumed there are none.


I suppose it is is not affected in a negative way. I suppose to turn it on it's head; are people more likely to be straight because they've been raised by a heterosexual couple? Hmmm... it's difficult to say what I'm trying to say with insulting anyone.

#23
Kayfabe

Kayfabe
  • syllables, killaholic

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,241 posts
  • Joined Jun 20, 2009
  • 2,804 rep
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:To'hajiilee

- Okay, so I know someone who works in child services dealing with removing children from abusive households and placing them in care etc. He is against same-sex adoption even though he is constantly immersed in "family-life" and what is best for a child. He is not a homophobe either. He says it's because a child, to have a fully rounded up bringing, needs the female influence of the mother and a male influence from the father. Thoughts?

That's an interesting perspective but naively ideal. No offense intended, but beggars can't be choosers. Like I mentioned previously being in an orphanage < being in the home of adoptive parents as a permanent fixture. Hell, being in the home of an adoptive parent singular would be better than being in a home. Maybe, maybe when we reach the time when adoption isn't a necessity (as in, prospective adoptive parents outweigh those needing adopting) we can talk about something like that. But we never will because that will never happen.

#24
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England

That's an interesting perspective but naively ideal. No offense intended, but beggars can't be choosers. Like I mentioned previously being in an orphanage < being in the home of adoptive parents as a permanent fixture. Hell, being in the home of an adoptive parent singular would be better than being in a home. Maybe, maybe when we reach the time when adoption isn't a necessity (as in, prospective adoptive parents outweigh those needing adopting) we can talk about something like that. But we never will because that will never happen.


That's funny because I have never heard this man describe as naive before.... :) I see your point but I think his is that, having removed a child from an unsuitable environment, in his opinion, he does not want to put it back into one?

#25
anarchistgirlscout

anarchistgirlscout
  • Chump

  • PipPipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • Joined Apr 25, 2011
  • 149 rep
  • Age:33
  • Gender:Female
No one can tell me that having different genitals than my partner would make me any better or worse a parent than having a matched set. That is small-minded, bigoted thinking. You can have a mother and father who are perfectly wonderful people, but don't present a well-rounded outlook on life for their offspring. You can have a couple of queers who show their kid every aspect of life and human interaction.
The thing is, regardless of what's in your pants or if you have a ring on your finger, you have to be the best person you can be for your child. I think a family that adopts a child needs to be loving, accepting, patient, kind, and compassionate. Their interests need to be what is best for the child. They need to be generous with their time and their attention, and raise a strong, independent person.
I don't know how any of that is affected in the slightest by whether you're an innie or an outtie.
As for the bullying thing - let's quickly remove all the children then from the homes of people who are overwieght, or have freckles, or are just plain weird. They are going to be bullied, too, so it is clearly justification for ripping children away from loving parents.

#26
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England
Some stats and info:

- As of 2005, there were over 250,000 children living in same-sex households in the USA
- There are still over 600,000 living in temporary accommodation in the USA (available stats (probable number higher))


- According to the US censorship snapshot published in 2007, same-sex couples with children have significantly lower economic resources and rates of home ownership than a heterosexual married couple.

- According to the American College of Paediatricians argue that mainstream health and mental health organisation have taken anti-same-sex adoption stances due to their own social and political views, rather than the scientific evidence at hand.


Just some more thoughts.... does the economics of it affect anything?

#27
BJA TC MD

BJA TC MD
  • Dominated Love Slave

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,371 posts
  • Joined Aug 07, 2011
  • 734 rep
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Home
I don't see anything wrong with same sex couples adopting a child. As long as the child gets looked after properly, there isn't really anything wrong with it. It shouldn't matter if the couple is same sex, same sex couples can still look after kids and raise them properly, can't they?

#28
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England
Okay changing tack. So we mostly agree that it should be universally allowed for same-sex couples to adopt; why then, do you think, that people believe that it should be illegal/not-allowed? How do you think their minds can be changed?

#29
fiercecircus

fiercecircus
  • Insomniac

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Joined Aug 21, 2011
  • 525 rep
  • Age:34
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New England
I say- who cares! These children need loving homes. People who go out of their way to adopt a child have huge hearts. Let them have a family.
  • classof12 likes this

#30
ConfirmPassword

ConfirmPassword
  • My imaginary friend thinks you're stupid

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,264 posts
  • Joined Mar 27, 2010
  • 860 rep
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Denmark

I know you were just providing it as an example, not agreeing with it. And I was also quoting you as an example.

I'll tell you why it's bullshit: bullies are weak people that seek out any differences in a person to make fun of them. If it's not because you have gay parents, it's because you're short, or because you talk funny, or because you're overweight. The one thing we don't do is modify what we do to accommodate the bullies, that's bass ackwards.


Well you're right. But I still see it as a problem. But in the kind of same way as you get bullied because you're short just worse. There's nothing wrong with being short, but there's a problem getting bullied because of it



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Debate

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users