Topic: Gay Adoption.

[Meg7]

Honestly, it doesn't bother me. I've known a few kids that have been in and out of foster homes and all they wanted was a loving family. I don't think it would have matter who, as long as they are loved. If the couple has a loving relationship, a good home, and money to provide the child with the care and stability he needs, who are we to tell them no? Why say not to them but let weirdos and molestors be adoptive or foster parents. Take in point the foster family of the year here in a America a few years back. Turns out that the father molested the girls. How is that better for the kids then a gay couple? It's not. It's not like the couple is going to force their kid to be gay. Maybe the kid will be gay maybe not, but I don't think a parent is going to force that onto them.

And to say they need the opposite sex for a parent isn't necessarily true, especially if one of the parent can still relate and talk to them in a way that makes the child comfortable (ie a father speaking to his daughter about womenly things) or if they have female relatives to turn to. A family doesn't just have to be a mother and father anymore. The person who the greatest influence on me was my grandma and she practically raised me at times.

So long story short, if they (the parents whether two men or two women) can raise a child, provide them with love, stability, and a good home, who am I to say no?

[redrockydennis]

i'd adopt one, i hear they have wonderful fashion sense

[Corkboy]

Wolves in Delamere Forrest if possible.

Seriously , someone would have to make that choice for me and I would hope they fostered me with a mother and father.

Ok, Grifter, here are my selections.

Grifterini, anywhere from 0 to 12 years old. In descending order, nice straight couple, nice gay couple, nice fucking anyone who gives a shit, institution.

After 12, I'd stick you with a gay couple for 6 months and if you didn't like it, you could take your sorry ass off to whatever teenage gay knocking shop you wanted.

If we both have to relive our lives in some bizarre Time Jump thingy, you'd better hope you get me as your adoption ref.

Oh, and you wouldn't last two hours in the woods with wolves, you juicy ass bitch.

[grifter]

corkboy.

Get to the point , you want me don't you ?

[Corkboy]

corkboy.

Get to the point , you want me don't you ?

Only if we can adopt. I'm not some party favour you can throw away when you get bored, you know.

[Brian Blessed]

I wish to be the bridesmaid and best man for your union, please.

[Slave]

I did vote no but then I read this:

Honestly, it doesn't bother me. I've known a few kids that have been in and out of foster homes and all they wanted was a loving family.

Even though I feel pretty strongly that a homosexual couple shouldn't get the same priority to adopt as a straight couple, if there is a shortage of couples willing to adopt, which I'd imagine there is, then I think being brought up by two homosexuals is better than the alternative.

[macca888]

I did vote no but then I read this:

Even though I feel pretty strongly that a homosexual couple shouldn't get the same priority to adopt as a straight couple, if there is a shortage of couples willing to adopt, which I'd imagine there is, then I think being brought up by two homosexuals is better than the alternative.

As long as they don't put on their application forms that they want to rear the child! 

[AndyInVA]

It's wrong, just plain wrong.

Poor kid will have a lifetime of piss taking , a kid needs there mother. Imagine growing up in that house, bringing your mates back from school. Nah just wrong.

ahh yes

but what if they have two mothers

wont that be twice as good

[Corkboy]

Catholic adoption agency loses bid to bar gay parents from service

Catholic Care sought exclusion from the 2007 sexual orientation regulations on grounds of religious beliefs
 
    * Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent
    * The Guardian, Thursday 19 August 2010

A Catholic adoption agency has lost its attempt to restrict its service to heterosexual couples after the Charity Commission found there was no justification for barring gay and lesbian parents.

Leeds-based Catholic Care sought exclusion from the 2007 sexual orientation regulations and began legal action to change its constitution so it could continue helping married couples only. The commission initially refused to give its consent, but the charity won the right to appeal against its decision.

Catholic Care told the high court that it would have to stop finding homes for children because Catholic donations would cease if it helped gay prospective parents. Mr Justice Briggs instructed the commission to reconsider the case.

But the commission said today it could not accede to the charity's demands, with its chief executive, Andrew Hind, saying the decision had been "complex and sensitive".

He said: "In certain circumstances, it is not against the law for charities to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. However, because the prohibition on such discrimination is a fundamental principle of human rights law, such discrimination can only be permitted in the most compelling circumstances.

"We have concluded that in this case the reasons Catholic Care have set out do not justify their wish to discriminate."

A one-line statement from the Catholic bishops of England and Wales said the welfare of children had "always been Catholic Care's primary concern" and that it would now carefully consider the ruling.

Catholic Care said it was very disappointed by the outcome as it would reduce the number of people recruited as adoptive parents.

It would now consider whether there was "any other way" in which the charity could continue to "support families seeking children in need".

The country's Catholic hierarchy fought hard to secure an exemption for adoption agencies and their struggle became the focus of an unprecedented papal outburst last February, which saw Benedict XVI condemn UK equality legislation.

In a strongly worded letter to the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, the pope criticised the then-Labour government for creating "limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs".

He wrote: "The effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

Harriet Harman, who was equality minister at the time, defended the laws. The two will come face-to-face for the first time next month, when the pope visits Britain and is due to meet Harman in her role as acting leader of the Labour party.

Their meeting will follow "courtesy calls" from David Cameron, who will enjoy 20 minutes with the pontiff, and his deputy Nick Clegg, who gets half that time, before mass at Westminster Cathedral.Other details from the full papal itinerary, released today, show there will be two joint public appearances by the archbishop of Canterbury and the pope. Relations between the two churches have been strained since the Vatican announced a new structure for disaffected Anglicans that would make it easier for them to convert to Catholicism.

source

Strange days indeed, when an organisation that is being attacked all over the planet for the horrible shit it did to children is now protesting that it only cares for "the welfare of the children".

[AriGold]

Voted no, male and 1-25.

[Cochise]

Corkboy, is Catholicism the only religion you have a problem with or is it every organised religion? I only ever see you post stuff about Catholics.

Anyway gay adoption, I'm against it.

[Lent§]

Voted no, male and 1-25.

Same, I don't think people are ready for it, imagine the grief them kids are gonna get all day every day at school.

[Corkboy]

Corkboy, is Catholicism the only religion you have a problem with or is it every organised religion? I only ever see you post stuff about Catholics.

Maybe that's all you're interested in. I have droned on many times about muslims, scientologists, buddhists, evangelicals. To be fair, the catholics are giving great material right now, but the muslims are quality ore, too.

Anyway gay adoption, I'm against it.

Catholic thing?

[Refo]

yes male 1-25.

Its pretty simple really. Kids get bullied all the time regardless of who their parents are. Bullies find reasons. A stable family is much more important than the taunts of  ignorant kids.

Also, the stigma can only be decreased through acceptance of the practice, and we should be working against stigma.

Everybody on this thread should be required to watch the movie "The Kids are Alright".

trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdDSqgZ87fM

[AriGold]

If kids are going to bully over a kid having gay parents, kids are going to bully over having no parents, or "not real" parents, or "temporary" parents. The bullying thing is a terrible reason to deny a child a stable family. If you genuinly believe that having a child shipped between temporary foster carers and children's homes is a better option than a child having a gay couple as adoptive parents, then I'd suggest you are either a massive bigot, or have very little knowledge of just how hard it is for children who have to settle into a new home / environment / family every few months.

And how would these kids know that some child had gay parents anyway? I know of a few single parent familes who live with brothers, sisters, friends, etc ... making it a household with kids and two adults of the same sex who aren't in a relationship. What's the difference?

Your opinion. It's not right and it's not wrong. I don't agree with it, that's my opinion.

[Elli]

And how would these kids know that some child had gay parents anyway? I know of a few single parent familes who live with brothers, sisters, friends, etc ... making it a household with kids and two adults of the same sex who aren't in a relationship. What's the difference?

Indeed. I recently worked for someone who asked my opinion about her adoptive daughter's speech problem. She and her cohabiting female friend have each adopted a daughter from China - they were adopted aged less than 1, and are now somewhere in the GCSEs and A levels age bracket.
As far as I knew, this woman was gay, and had 2 adopted daughters within a stable relationship (although she is a bit of a loon who blows hot and cold like nothing I've ever known, so "stable" may not be quite the word).
What made me really sad was that she clearly knows the profession thinks she is a lesbian, and she was at great pains to state to me that she lives with a friend "and we're not gay, not at all, just friends, just living together, not gay".

Mate. I'm 30 years younger than you, if not more. I'm in no position to judge you. You have adopted a child from an overseas orphanage which you described as a horrific hell-hole of a place. To do this, you must have gone to great personal financial and emotional expense. (In a fairly awful comparison, I have a fear of going to a cat/dog rescue centre, because I know I'd want to take them all home. I can't even begin to imagine what an orphanage would do to me.) I couldn't give a shit if you were gay, straight or an S&M fiend as long as you don't feel the need to tell me anything I don't need to know.

My point is, like Rhi, what difference does it make? To the two ladies involved, either they love each other or they're friends. If they love each other, they have a cover story which fits into what Rhi's saying. Kind of sad, but maybe worth it for the reduced hassle. If they're friends, they have a convenient arrangement where they share the house and the experience of adopting a post-lingual Chinese daughter who may have grown up with a slight L1 interference speech problem.

For the two girls, whatever the true nature of that relationship, they have been rescued - I can think of no more appropriate word - and given a loving home, a good schooling, all the trappings of a good start in life.

Fucking sight better than a bed in a room in a wing of a Chinese orphanage, where the population is going mental and one more baby won't really matter here or there.

Gay?

Parents.

One of those words is worlds and worlds more important than the other.

[Brian Blessed]

Thanks, Rhi and Elli. I posted a few times in this thread, after I was really quite surprised by the responses as RAWK is usually quite liberal. The most common argument was the bullying thing, which is a load of rubbish.

[High_Cotton]

A girl I grew up with had same-sex parents.  If I recall correctly we found out about it in middle school (age 11-13 somewhere, probably closer to 13 though I suppose).  I don't recall anyone ever thinking ill of her. 

Seems to me that someone isn't going to be bullied solely for that reason.  It will likely start because of something else, at which point, I suppose that would be used as additional ammo.....

[Corkboy]

My point is, like Rhi, what difference does it make? To the two ladies involved, either they love each other or they're friends. If they love each other, they have a cover story which fits into what Rhi's saying. Kind of sad, but maybe worth it for the reduced hassle. If they're friends, they have a convenient arrangement where they share the house and the experience of adopting a post-lingual Chinese daughter who may have grown up with a slight L1 interference speech problem.

My wife has an aunt who is a Franciscan nun and lives in one of the southern states in America. She has a partner nun who is of a similar age now, getting up on seventy now, but they're still working. The thing is, they have spent the last forty years together, mostly in the same place, outside convents or other religious communities, so basically being each other's housemate/whatever for most of their lives. I have no idea if they have, or ever had a physical relationship but they were certainly always mentioned in the same breath in my wife's parents house, like any other couple. They do charity work and they work fucking hard trying to milk dollars from rich folk to give to poor folk and then they watch tv and have a whisky.

Anyway, my point is that these women are hard to categorise, but if they had been given kids to rear, I couldn't think of better people.

[the 92A]

What does a persons sexuality have to do with their parenting skills? Totally amazes me that people would make a judgement about parenting on someones sexuality. If you going to use the bullying thing, why stop at sexuality, the logic is parents who stand out in anyway shouldn't be allowed to adopt in case their kids get bullied. So if you Fat,have a scouse accent down south, or have ginger hair or if a different colour or maybe disabled in some way then by that logic you shouldn't be allowed to adopt, it's complete nonsense the only qualification you should have to adopt is that you can provide a happy home for who ever your looking after, what you get up to in the bedroom is totally irrelevant.

[Popcorn]

Still can't get head around Gay adoption. Don't think it's natural.

[JoeTwerp]

Still can't get head around Gay adoption. Don't think it's natural.

of course it isn't natural, so what?  Neither is the computer you are typing on.

[JoeTwerp]

yes male 1-25.

Watch out Refo,  you have entered the agree with Twerp zone

[OrangeMochaFraps]

I've never understood why gay couples shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexual couples.  (Then again I did grow up in San Francisco...)

The kids get bullied argument is fucking ridiculous.  People will only keep making fun of gays if we continue to make gays out to be unnatural.

This is the civil rights movement of this generation, and so far it's been pretty fucked up.  You can choose to be gay as much as you can choose to be black. Homophobia is as ugly and harmful as racism.

[Una cerveza, por favor]

if we continue to make gays out to be unnatural.

But it is unnatural. I find it weird however people should be free to choose their partners so I am not against it.

[JoeTwerp]

homosexuality itself is not unnatural.  You find homosexuality in nature

[Una cerveza, por favor]

homosexuality itself is not unnatural.  You find homosexuality in nature

True. But that's mainly the 'in the mind' stuff like if I were to subconsciously be attracted to a beautiful male face/body.

I was, however, talking about 2 dudes bumming each other. If it were meant to be natural, then there would be offspring produced. Because that's the main aim of human life - procreation.

[Refo]

True. But that's mainly the 'in the mind' stuff like if I were to subconsciously be attracted to a beautiful male face/body.

Torres.

I was, however, talking about 2 dudes bumming each other. If it were meant to be natural, then there would be offspring produced. Because that's the main aim of human life - procreation.

Meant to be natural by who exactly?

So whenever sex doesn't result in a baby that is unnatural? By that definition, having sex with someone unlucky enough to be sterile is unnatural too, and since a whole lot of adoptions are made by couples like this, should that be banned too?

[Refo]

Watch out Refo,  you have entered the agree with Twerp zone

Twerpy, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

[Una cerveza, por favor]

Meant to be natural by who exactly?

So whenever sex doesn't result in a baby that is unnatural? By that definition, having sex with someone unlucky enough to be sterile is unnatural too, and since a whole lot of adoptions are made by couples like this, should that be banned too?

Not what I said. A man is supposed to procreate with a woman and a woman only. I didn't make the rules.

[Refo]

Not what I said. A man is supposed to procreate with a woman and a woman only. I didn't make the rules.

I didn't realize there are rules. But if you didn't make em, who did?

[Una cerveza, por favor]

I didn't realize there are rules. But if you didn't make em, who did?

Depends on who you follow - God or Darwin. God says Man + Woman = A Okay. And it may come as a surprise to you but Darwin also agrees with him/her/it. Survival of the fittest and all that evolution stuff would be impossible with gay people.

That's just how life works.

[Una cerveza, por favor]

And lets not get sidetracked here. I did say that despite it being unnatural and weird, I was all for gay rights. Just because I find it unnatural doesn't mean it should be banned or vice versa.

[OrangeMochaFraps]

I don't understand how homosexuality can be unnatural?  Do you think half the people out there - all those discriminated (and in many lesbians cases "corrective raped") CHOOSE to be gay?

That's how they were born.

Your argument of natural selection is invalid.  People who are born sterile must be unnatural too then.  Those women who have miscarriages - fucking unnatural.

Homophobia is so fucking ugly.

[Refo]

God, obviously depending on which god your talking about. I don't think Apollo had anything against gays, for instance.

Darwin, no. Darwin doesn't make any rules for anybody, he just describes how things panned/pan out.

'but if everybody was gay there would be no evolution because there would be no babies'

True. Not everybody is gay though, and there are too many babies. Really, i think Joe hit the nail on the head earlier though. Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. Otherwise, I'm not sure what natural actually means.

[Refo]

I don't understand how homosexuality can be unnatural?  Do you think half the people out there - all those discriminated (and in many lesbians cases "corrective raped") CHOOSE to be gay?

That's how they were born.

Your argument of natural selection is invalid.  People who are born sterile must be unnatural too then.  Those women who have miscarriages - fucking unnatural.

Homophobia is so fucking ugly.

The last bastion of socially acceptable bigotry in the western world. This poll is shocking really.

I don't know if its as simple as like a gene, but it doesn't matter, it can't be helped.

[Una cerveza, por favor]

True. Not everybody is gay though, and there are too many babies. Really, i think Joe hit the nail on the head earlier though. Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. Otherwise, I'm not sure what natural actually means.

Incest occurs in nature. So does pedophilia. None of those I count as natural.

And before the PC brigade attacks me, not comparing homosexuality with either of those 2 vile things but just arguing against the '____ occurs in nature so it is natural' argument which, with apologies to my fellow Israelophile Refo, I find quite stupid.

PS - A man shall not lie with another man as he would with a woman, it is a תועבה toeba. 

Homophobia is so fucking ugly.

This is exactly what I hate about pseudo-liberals. Patronizing beyond belief but haven't half a clue of what they are talking about.

[Refo]

Incest occurs in nature. So does pedophilia. None of those I count as natural.

And before the PC brigade attacks me, not comparing homosexuality with either of those 2 vile things but just arguing against the '____ occurs in nature so it is natural' argument which, with apologies to my fellow Israelophile friend Refo, I find quite stupid.
This is exactly what I hate about pseudo-liberals. Patronizing beyond belief but haven't half a clue of what they are talking about.

Lets examine those two examples Una.

Pedophilia:
Obviously (At least in our modern western society, I cant speak for the psychology of ancient Greek kids where the practice was socially acceptable but I digress...) having sex with a child is damaging to that child's psychology. Can scar him/her for life. That's why its wrong; whether its natural or not doesn't come into the discussion, but yeah, technically speaking its natural.

Incest:
Damaging to the offspring of the incestuous couple, and even hunter gatherer societies often try to mate as far away from their family lines as possible. That is also probably the root cause of the social stigma surrounding it. Is it natural? Well we've naturally developed an aversion to it, but if someone has an urge to bang his sister, its not exactly his fault. Its probably not all that bad, to be honest, as long as he doesn't act on that urge, because that act would cause damage to all the parties involved.

But really it all boils down to:
unconsensual sex: natural, but wrong.
consensual sex: natural, sometimes strange, but OK.

edit:
of course what consensual means is debatable, but that's for another time

PS. Like so many Jews, I'm an atheist Una. And I'm only an Israelophile on these boards, lol. I should really get my crazy right wing  לכודנק likudnik friend on Rawk, he'd cause quite a stir. Probably get banned in a few minutes after calling everyone anti-semites and explaining that Israel should just "wait for a war, and move all the Arabs, simples", the daft c*nt, bless his heart, hope he doesn't get into politics, he's trying to do just that. Oh and he's a good, standards corrupted shirt buying red. People are complex.

[OrangeMochaFraps]

This is exactly what I hate about pseudo-liberals. Patronizing beyond belief but haven't half a clue of what they are talking about.

This is exactly what I hate about misinformed bible-quoters.  Enforcing their beliefs and wills on others while disregarding the hypocrisies of the very writing they quote.

If you truly believe everything in Leviticus (where your quote is from), you must also find selfish to be an abomination.  And you need to sacrifice animals to make sure mothers are cleaned after giving birth to children.