Topic: New Poll 2015: Gay Adoption

[Party Phil]

Since we have two recently bumped threads from 2007 (with the poll still open) and 2009 (with the poll closed for some time) with 75% in favour and 41% in favour respectively, it seems like time for an update to get a real view of RAWKs feelings in 2015. The poll is open for 90 days. 

[Party Phil]

If anyone wants to share the reasons behind their vote please feel free!

[CraigDS]

Depressing in this day and age there even needs to be a poll about this sort of thing - of course they should be allowed to....if they are determined that they'd make good parents, exactly like how it should be woth a straight couple looking to adopt.

[TepidT2O]

Yes, obviously....

There might be some exceptions with older kids who old their own prejudices I suppose, but otherwise why not?

[Redman0151]

Yes, if people really want to deny a lonely child some loving parents because it "offends" their religion then they're real pieces of shit.

As for the bullying aspect, the bullies should be the ones who suffer not the victim, that is NOT an excuse for it not to happen. Kids get bullied over stupider shit than that, and hopefully most will be able to either overcome it or it'd become so normal that people don't think twice.

[B0151?]

Yes, if people really want to deny a lonely child some loving parents because it "offends" their religion then they're real pieces of shit.

Sad thing is that in the other thread, religion wasn't even mentioned much as the reason people had against it

[Brian Blessed]

Bullying and the need for male and female role models were the big ones. On that second point, I assume single parents should have their kids taken off them.

[Chakan]

I wish people who vote no had the courage of their conviction to explain why.

[azyless]

I wish people who vote no had the courage of their conviction to explain why.

They won't because there's no other reason to be against it than homophobia, and that's not as accepted now as it was 8 years ago.

[Chakan]

They won't because there's no other reason to be against it than homophobia, and that's not as accepted now as it was 8 years ago.

It would be nice to understand their prejudice though. What's the root of it?

[TepidT2O]

It would be nice to understand their prejudice though. What's the root of it?

Ignorance in all likelihood

[El Lobo]

10% is still scary 

[CHOPPER]

All day I keep reading it, and that title 'Gay Adoption' doesn't sound right.

It says to me do you want to adopt a gay person. Which I'm sure many people would like to do and fair play to them, but whether it needs to go to a poll, am not so sure.

[Zeb]

Loving parents bringing up kids? I'm horrified by the idea.

[sms1986]

I can't see any reason why two loving adults in a relationship couldn't adopt a child if they were able to look after a child.

[AndyMuller]

Glad to see this poll looking a lot better and more positive than the last one

Would also like to know the reasons behind the few that voted no, but that's up to them I suppose.

[Fiasco]

Absolutely, 100 percent. The arguments against it would be deemed laughable if the subject matter wasn't so important.

[Mumm-Ra]

I voted yes, but what if they are radical islamists? In that case I would have to say no

[Millie]

Come on - those who have voted No would really like to hear your reasons

[hide5seek]

All day I keep reading it, and that title 'Gay Adoption' doesn't sound right.

It says to me do you want to adopt a gay person. Which I'm sure many people would like to do and fair play to them, but whether it needs to go to a poll, am not so sure.

I'd like to adopt a gay person, they might teach me better dress sense.

[BoRed]

I voted yes, but what if they are radical islamists? In that case I would have to say no

Gay radical islamists? Not very likely, is it?

[BarryCrocker]

Jesus (supposedly) had two dads and he turned out alright. 

[diggerling!]

Come on - those who have voted No would really like to hear your reasons

Likewise.

I'd also like to know what they think should happen when parents separate or divorce and then embark on a new, same-sex relationship. Do they think the children should be forcibly removed from their parents?! Be forced to live the one who remains straight?! Should the new partners be banned from co-habiting?!  Would the situation change if they had been adopted? Etc, etc. Where does the 'logic' end iyswim.

[planet-terror]

yes

[Kenny's Jacket]

wow 15 No's  - all from cowards too.  Lets hope those 15 don't have kids of their own.  What sort of upbringing would the children receive?

Sad. 

[stoa]

wow 15 No's  - all from cowards too.

Can't blame people for not posting their reasons why not, when it seems like all they'd hear is that they're religious nutters, extremists or prejudiced idiots...
Just for the record, I'm all for gay adoption, but this thread certainly doesn't look like it would lead to a sensible debate if anyone posted the reason why they've voted no...

[Redman0151]

Can't blame people for not posting their reasons why not, when it seems like all they'd hear is that they're religious nutters, extremists or prejudiced idiots...
Just for the record, I'm all for gay adoption, but this thread certainly doesn't look like it would lead to a sensible debate if anyone posted the reason why they've voted no...

Surely it'd be incredibly easy to prove they're not bigots or religious nutters if they stated their actual reasons?

[Ronnie1932]

I voted no purely for the reasons that Crosby Wych addressed, I didn't think it fair on the child in regards to the prejudice they may be exposed to growing up and how that might be very difficult for them.

I'm not saying I was wrong to think that way, maybe naive or maybe I'm homophobic and don't realise it.

Is that a bit like I'm not racist I've got black friends?

[Red Viper]

I voted no purely for the reasons that Crosby Wych addressed, I didn't think it fair on the child in regards to the prejudice they may be exposed to growing up and how that might be very difficult for them.

I'm not saying I was wrong to think that way, maybe naive or maybe I'm homophobic and don't realise it.

Is that a bit like I'm not racist I've got black friends?

That argument doesn't wash for me personally. If you're not allowing a child to be adopted then the alternative is usually a foster home or worse. Do you think that's fair on a child? Which of the two options do you honestly think would result in a better life for a child growing up, foster care or a home with two loving parents?

[Ronnie1932]

That argument doesn't wash for me personally. If you're not allowing a child to be adopted then the alternative is usually a foster home or worse. Do you think that's fair on a child? Which of the two options do you honestly think would result in a better life for a child growing up, foster care or a home with two loving parents?

I don't want to get into a debate about this so will make that clear now before everyone jumps on it. I answered honestly and explained my reasoning for my vote, if people think I am wrong then fare enough maybe I am.

In answer to your questions I have never been in a foster home so do not know what that is like but I am sure there are some that aren't very nice places. Two loving parents is definitely a better option, but as I said it may effect that child later in life when they have two dads and everyone else has a mum and a dad and the ridicule they will be exposed to growing up may also have consequences later on in life.

[Red Viper]

I don't want to get into a debate about this so will make that clear now before everyone jumps on it. I answered honestly and explained my reasoning for my vote, if people think I am wrong then fare enough maybe I am.

In answer to your questions I have never been in a foster home so do not know what that is like but I am sure there are some that aren't very nice places. Two loving parents is definitely a better option, but as I said it may effect that child later in life when they have two dads and everyone else has a mum and a dad and the ridicule they will be exposed to growing up may also have consequences later on in life.

That's fair enough, just from my experience I think kids are going to be bullied or picked on for 100s of other reasons before they're picked on for having two dads or two mums.

[The North Bank]

I voted no, society isn't ready for it. Kids getting bullied at school this week for being Muslim, that may pass once the hysteria settles down, having same sex parents would be ongoing ever lasting and brutal bullying, we over evaluate how advanced we are as a society, and it wouldn't be just other kids, there are simply no provisions in our society to accept an alternative image of parenting. Why should a kid put up with a lifetime of misery just to advance fairness, not for me.

[johnsmithlfc]

If anyone wants to share the reasons behind their vote please feel free!

Especially the 18 'No' voters.

[Red Viper]

I voted no, society isn't ready for it. Kids getting bullied at school this week for being Muslim, that may pass once the hysteria settles down, having same sex parents would be ongoing ever lasting and brutal bullying, we over evaluate how advanced we are as a society, and it wouldn't be just other kids, there are simply no provisions in our society to accept an alternative image of parenting. Why should a kid put up with a lifetime of misery just to advance fairness, not for me.

Well I know several gay parents and I'd say their children's lives are anything but miserable.

In fact, I'd say the assumption that a child with gay parents will have a lifetime of misery purely due to their parents being gay is ridiculous and offensive.

[Chakan]

People voting no because a child will get bullied at school. Sorry to me that's a cop out. Like children don't get bullied because they're short, tall, fat, thin, black, Indian, white, big ears , small ears, long hair , short hair, have a birthmark , have ginger hair, have freckles , don't have freckles. It's a ridiculous excuse.

There are a multitude of reasons why kids get bullied. Kids don't need to have a logical reason to bully someone. It's school, it's the way it goes.

[johnsmithlfc]

I voted no, society isn't ready for it. Kids getting bullied at school this week for being Muslim, that may pass once the hysteria settles down, having same sex parents would be ongoing ever lasting and brutal bullying, we over evaluate how advanced we are as a society, and it wouldn't be just other kids, there are simply no provisions in our society to accept an alternative image of parenting. Why should a kid put up with a lifetime of misery just to advance fairness, not for me.

Maybe we should stop disabled people adopting, or maybe really fat people or Muslim people too.
I mean come on...think of the bullying a kid would get for having a really fat Muslim mum with one arm?  Brutal!!

I think it's pretty sad that as a society or even some individuals, we think people have to look or be a certain way in order to adopt and save kids from a life of potential abuse, bullying, criminality and misery in a children's home.
Not every place in the UK is filled with hateful, nasty and bigoted people and I'm sure there are plenty of kids who flourish at school and at home and who have great friends even though their parents are gay.

If we decided that because of potential bullying all kinds of 'different' had to be curbed....we'd have everyone looking, dressing and acting the same.
Diversity is life...it's beauty and the more of it out there, the more attitudes will change.
nothing will change by being scared of potential bullying and not allowing people to live their lives.

[RedGlen]

While I understand the reason for having a poll on "gay" adoption, one day I hope that society is less homophobic and bigoted, so that it is only called adoption. I don't buy any logic or reasoning for voting no to this question - as a previous poster said, the lack of male and female role models as a reason cannot be true, else all the single parents of the world wouldn't be fit to raise their kids. By far the most important factors in parenting, for me are, love, care and attention the parents are willing to devote, and having a stable relationship/family life.

The only considerations that should be taken into account are the adopter's suitability to be parents; their religion, race, or sexual orientation should have absolutely no bearing on the process.

[The North Bank]

People voting no because a child will get bullied at school. Sorry to me that's a cop out. Like children don't get bullied because they're short, tall, fat, thin, black, Indian, white, big ears , small ears, long hair , short hair, have a birthmark , have ginger hair, have freckles , don't have freckles. It's a ridiculous excuse.

Not the same for me, and not just bullying. In my opinion we are not ready. I was in Holland a few months back and saw billboards of 2 men holding hands. Never seen that here, if 2 men kiss on coronation street its talked about in the papers for weeks, called brave and groundbreaking, it starts all sorts of discussion.
Anyway it's a vote with 2 options, I chose the other one.

[Chakan]

Not the same for me, and not just bullying. In my opinion we are not ready. I was in Holland a few months back and saw billboards of 2 men holding hands. Never seen that here, if 2 men kiss on coronation street its talked about in the papers for weeks, called brave and groundbreaking, it starts all sorts of discussion.
Anyway it's a vote with 2 options, I chose the other one.

How's it not the same? What kind of bullying happens when a person is short vs when a person has 2 moms or 2 dads? I'm curious. It's your opinion and you can choose to defend it. I'm trying to understand what you mean by a different kind of bullying.

Basically i'm trying to understand what you think will happen with these kids at school when some other kid finds out they have gay parents.

[Red Viper]

The only considerations that should be taken into account are the adopter's suitability to be parents; their religion, race, or sexual orientation should have absolutely no bearing on the process.

Yep.