|
By:
Bacon:
Whether or not there is a bullying issue with regards to a child being brought up be a gay couple is a side issue. My point is that we should be basing our policies on gay adoption on the welfare of the child rather than liberal prejudices in favour of **sexuality. It is my view that the latter seems to be taking precedence. The fact that children are sometimes born into dysfunctional heterosexual families has absolutely nothing to do with whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt or not. Suppose it's ok to adopt a child into a family that can barely afford the weekly food bill on the basis that other children are growing up in impoverished families or in famine ridden countries? We cannot stop bad parents from having children, but we can look out for the child's welfare (social services). As for single parents it might not be the most ideal of upbringings, but the fact remains that the child does have at least have one biological parent which is far better than being adopted into a different family. It is still natural. Putting a child into the care of a **sexual couple is a decision which is should not be taken lightly. It is good for a young mind to have a mother and a father. The human race has been largely based on the nurturing of the young by both parents and to rewrite this evolutionary trait for the sake of political correctness is a big mistake in my view. I am not anti gay adoption for the sake of it. I just do not personally believe it is good for a young mind to grow up and be taught that being **sexual is the norm. Because it isn't. Moreover, I do not think we should be rushing to allow for widespread gay adoption based on the evidence provided. It is something than needs far more consideration than it has been given. |
|
By:
its one of the worse traits in a discussion, to dismiss everything someone says because you dont agree on a certain point.
i guess i just take issue with gay even coming into it. i concede it can be hard to ignore, especially if you ever see an instance of a stereotype being 'confirmed' (for instance, there is undeniably a higher prevalence of stds in **sexuals, i would not agree with mental instability opinion however) - but surely it should be much more down to the suitability of any individual person, rather than who they choose to bring to their bedroom. There are so many different walks of life in the world, with normal sussed people and insane nutters in equal measure, it seems unfair to single out any one minority group. |
|
By:
Templeton Peck 10 Nov 13:39
For what it's worth, I think the age of having a child should be an enforced 21 and there should be a huge cut in the benefits system. This will be one of many necessary steps in trying to create a better society for both those in it and those being born into it. --------- Regardless of what i think of your other points, I agree wholeheartedly with this, there is not really an argument against it imo. How would you police this? Forced abortions? Human rights? Would it stop dysfunctional families? Does being 21 mean that someone is going to be a good parent? Would you deny welfare to a child who needed it? There's SIX arguements against it already |
|
By:
How does the gay couple explain the birds n bees to there adopted kid , lets call him Elton.
Elton when a man loves a woman they have natural sex, which can result in a baby, as god intended. When me and your other dad have sex , he puts his bits up me bum. Thats gonna be one confused little Elton. |
|
By:
bacontrout. 10 Nov 14:05
its one of the worse traits in a discussion, to dismiss everything someone says because you dont agree on a certain point. Explain? |
|
By:
no should not be allowed
|
|
By:
next thing you will be saying its ok for women to play football(sorry attempt to play football)
|
|
By:
redrich sorry, that last post was to templeton, just answering yours now..
|
|
By:
PC gone MADDDD i tell ya... no ifs or buts it's not right to put a kid into a gay family.. END OF....
|
|
By:
so in ur logic of a kid needs a mother and father, should single parents not be allowed to bring up kids aswell?
|
|
By:
bacontrout. 10 Nov 14:05
There are so many different walks of life in the world, with normal sussed people and insane nutters in equal measure, it seems unfair to single out any one minority group. It's not really a case of singling out a minority group, it's more a case of what are the advantages to a child of being raised by a **sexual couple over a heterosexual couple and what are the disadvantages. I can think of no advantages and a number of disadvantages. I'd ask "what would the child want?" redrich 10 Nov 14:06 Templeton Peck 10 Nov 13:39 For what it's worth, I think the age of having a child should be an enforced 21 and there should be a huge cut in the benefits system. This will be one of many necessary steps in trying to create a better society for both those in it and those being born into it. --------- How would you police this? Forced abortions? Human rights? Would it stop dysfunctional families? Does being 21 mean that someone is going to be a good parent? Would you deny welfare to a child who needed it? How would I police it? If someone's pregnant and under 21 then the foetus would be aborted, assuming this girl had not managed to hide it from society for so long. Forced abortions? Yes. Human rights? The rights of the many outweight the rights of the individual. Would it prevent dysfunctional families? No. But it would most certainly lead to a huge reduction in them. Does 21 mean you'll be a good parent? No. But you're more likely to be a better parent at 21 than at 17. You're more likely to stay in education. You're less likely to be a burden on the taxpayer. You're more likely to be able to add something to society. Would I deny welfare to a child that needs it? Big question. Very wide ranging. I'd want to know why a child needs benefits. If an adult has a child and is unable to care for said child then I'd classify it close to the child abuse end of the spectrum. Oh bugger. Just noticed I've slotted in my bookshelves back to front. Thankfully they just slide in. |
|
By:
this is a gay fred....
|
|
By:
im talkin to a bunch of **its....
|
|
By:
what planet you live on Templeton Peck?
|
|
By:
arsenaleon 10 Nov 14:21
so in ur logic of a kid needs a mother and father, should single parents not be allowed to bring up kids aswell? Covered this a few posts back |
|
By:
redrich 10 Nov 14:06
How would you police this? Forced abortions? Human rights? Would it stop dysfunctional families? Does being 21 mean that someone is going to be a good parent? Would you deny welfare to a child who needed it? There's SIX arguements against it already --------- lol, i meant no argument against it morally! obviously, practically it would be a nightmare. many laws dont make much sense when read as stated - by this argument why have the age of consent at 16? why not 15 and 364 days? its a conundrum, but the idea presented would imo, be an improvement on how it is now. as to your previous post, that is a very very good post, and you can read my post above that (to templeton) as at least part of my answer. I appreciate you are not so much talking about the suitability of a gay parent (my previous post was a response to mr hill, who did have this issue), but the childs welfare, and you present your argument well. What I think we will differ on (and what the two opposing camps will differ on presumably forever) is what is 'natural'. I never got taught heterosexuality was the norm, but it turns out I am, as I found out at whatever age it was I started noticing girls. You can't 'train' this out of a kid. In fact I would argue that a lot of the problems stem from **sexuality being such a taboo, such a badge of shame for people. If it was just as much the norm as being straight, then obviously this argument wouldn't exist, and there would any kids in the world who would feel a) worried about having gay parents, b) the need to ostracise those that do. I'm not gonna tell you that my view is the more enlightened or worthy, it is just different, and believe me i can competely understand where youre coming from. I just think there would be less marginilisation if people focussed on the ways in which we are all similar, rather than different. |
|
By:
*there wouldnt be any kids in the world
|
|
By:
I never got taught heterosexuality was the norm
Were you brought up by heterosexual parents? My point here is that so much of the development of the human race, and any advanced speicies for that matter, is based upon knowledge and customs passed form the parents to the young. You assume we differ on our views about **sexuality in general but it is just the adoption issue that I have a problem with. What I do notice is that sexuality itself tends to be singly the most important issue in a homsexual person's life. You don't get heterosexual people going on and on about being 'straight' and going on 'straight pride' marches etc. I think sexuality as an issue could be given far too much airtime in a family with gay parents and that it would form a bias is such a household. |
|
By:
i was yes, but then that discount kids who turn out gay, when raised by heterosexuals, surely theyve done this IN SPITE of their parents?
I can understand your last line, that makes sense. sometimes i think though, that the popular perception of a gay person, the media representation, is way out of line with the gay people I know, and count as my friends. but cheers for the debate. i have been putting off lunch for 2 hours now though so i must leave it! |
|
By:
What I do notice is that sexuality itself tends to be singly the most important issue in a homsexual person's life. You don't get heterosexual people going on and on about being 'straight' and going on 'straight pride' marches etc. I think sexuality as an issue could be given far too much airtime in a family with gay parents and that it would form a bias is such a household.
What you notice is probably what you see in the media. What you don't notice is the majority of gay people who don't make a big issue of their sexuality. And of course you wouldn't notice the silent majority, because there is nothing to notice. |
|
By:
How does anyone notice this supposed silent majority when there is nothing to notice?
|
|
By:
Exactly.
|
|
By:
straight people haven't had an uphill battle to be accepted in society - christ almighty some people are stupid.
|
|
By:
go and watch the film Milk - I hope this does help.
|
|
By:
keliwah
Point is, how do you know this supposed majority exists? |
|
By:
Because I'm just that clever.
|
|
By:
I rest my case
|
|
By:
What next, f***ing Paedo rights?
Get a grip. Having Children is a privilege, nothing to do with human rights ffs. It's not about being anti-gay, it's about what is most wholesome for the children. **sexuals raising children is just as misguided and selfish as the countless idiots who have children 'on a whim' and then one of the two parents decides it's not for them. Paedo rights may sound ridiculous but many moons ago so did **sexual rights. There's plenty of Paedos who actively campaign for 'equal rights' for themselves and their kind. I really fear for where we are going to end up as a species. If I'm not mistaken, didn't the first UK**couple who were allowed to raise a child themselves get convicted for Child Abuse of children aged 8-14? As a society, and particularly in the UK, we are treading down some very dangerous paths. |
|
By:
oh dear
|
|
By:
The one thing above all else i find disgraceful about adoption is the ridiculous rule whereby to be able to adopt a family has to be able to offer a child their own bedroom. WTF !! A family is stopped from giving a child in desperate need of love a home and a family atmosphere because the child may have to share a bedroom :0 so instead they are left in care with dozens of other children sharing bedroom with umpteen others until they leave at 16. how sad !!!!
|
|
By:
Your perceived view of **sexuals is very strange.
What about 2 straight guys adopting a kid? |
|
By:
Daddy, what were you just doing to Daddy, and why is there a man dressed all in black with a zip in the mouth
|
|
By:
Surrey 10 Nov 16:09
Your perceived view of **sexuals is very strange. What about 2 straight guys adopting a kid? surrey, you really are without doubt, the biggest plank on here by a country mile |
|
By:
maverick sums up my feelings about this perfectly at 11.24 10 Nov
If me and my missus were killed in a car crash today, I would rather have my son brought up by two gay men who could provide a loving family atmosphere, than a man and a woman who were total **wits like some of the families I see day to day. |
|
By:
I'm not racist,(I have a black cat) but I can't be doin with all these foreign types that we have in this country nowadays.
|
|
By:
**sexuality is the future of mankind, bring it on. By 3000, we all will be Bisexuals.
|