Should gay couples be allowed to adopt

[Sorreltail]

Personally i think they should , they are adults too, and i think the effect of not having a motherly/fatherly influence is highly exaggerated what do others think?

[Dagda]

The argument against whould be that it may have an upsetting effect on impresinoble minds. This is complete bull. There has not been one case of a homosexual cople raising a homosexual child. All homosexuals come from hetrosexual families. In fact, it appears that homosexual couples leave there child more emotionaly stable than a hetrosexual couple (this is wild genrelisation, I know and usally I try to avoid this)

[caphis]

Quote by: Dagda The argument against whould be that it may have an upsetting effect on impresinoble minds. This is complete bull. There has not been one case of a homosexual cople raising a homosexual child. All homosexuals come from hetrosexual families. In fact, it appears that homosexual couples leave there child more emotionaly stable than a hetrosexual couple (this is wild genrelisation, I know and usally I try to avoid this)

I'm all for gay couples having the right to adopt children, but this isn't true. To claim that "there has not been one case of a homosexual couple raising a homosexual child" is untrue.

That said, I know several gay couples who would be better parents than most heterosexual couples that I know. For that reason, I could never support suppressing their right to adopt.

[JaneDoe321]

One of the arguments I've seen is that a homosexual couple has less stability, as they are not married.

Ironic.

[grandpa]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 One of the arguments I've seen is that a homosexual couple has less stability, as they are not married. Ironic.

Yes, and marriage doesn't necessarily mean "stability."

Grandpa h.

[oracle13]

Gay couples should immediately be given the right to adopt children.

There are several poor arguments against - for example having to fathers or two mothers would hinder his growth as a child - but heterosexual couples which have divorved leave their children to be raised by only 1 father or mother!

The other is that pre-existing prejudice towards gay couples adopting would leave their child vulnerable to bullying and would give him much lower self-esteem. But if we erased these unfounded prejudices there would be no harm.

I completely support gay couples adopting.

[The Bacon Guy]

The two most common arguments against gay adoption (that gay relationships are less stable and that children of gay couples will suffer ridicule) both fail because they rely on singling out the perceived negative aspects of gay relationships and ignoring these aspects in other more conventional relationships.

Gay relationships may be less stable than hetero ones, but it's also a fact that ethnic minority relationships are more stable than white relationships. Yet no one seems to be demanding that whites be banned from having children. Similarly, children of gay couples may be subjected to ridicule, but then children of poor or unattractive couples may also be subjected to ridicule. Yet no one seems to be demanding that poor or ugly people be prevented from having kids.

The arguments against gay adoption are simply a desperate attempt to justify irrational bigotry.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The two most common arguments against gay adoption (that gay relationships are less stable and that children of gay couples will suffer ridicule) both fail because they rely on singling out the perceived negative aspects of gay relationships and ignoring these aspects in other more conventional relationships. Gay relationships may be less stable than hetero ones, but it's also a fact that ethnic minority relationships are more stable than white relationships.

The jury is still out on the claim directly above. But I understand your point nonetheless.

Grandpa h.

[another day]

As many have pointed out, the arguments against gay adoption hinge on the "ideal" family scenario. That it is ideal for a child to be raised by a mother and father. This is undeniably true. It's just the way of nature for a young human being to need a male and female parent figure in their life to raise them ideally... the yin yang to balance their psyches as they develop. However, until we make single parenthood illegal, it makes no sense to deny gay couples the right to adopt. It's not the ideal situation for a child, but not much in life is ideal, and it's certainly healthier than a group home.

it's also a fact that ethnic minority relationships are more stable than white relationships.

If by "stable" you mean nothing more then "they stay together", that is probably true, because in immigrant cultures it is not very acceptable to divorce. You stay together no matter what. But does this translate to stability in a family? When you have fighting and anger in the home all the time? I doubt it. Just because a family "stays together" doesn't mean the child is being raised in a healthy and stable environment.

Here's another interesting question... should it be acceptable for adoption agencies to factor this in when selecting the adoptive family? They take many factors into account when assessing potential adopters. I have no doubt there would be lawsuits like crazy if they tried it, but is it a logical step to take? By that I mean, if two couples are otherwise equal choices, should the man and woman be given the child over the man/man, woman/woman? To me it makes sense, but it would never be acceptable to operate like that.

[caphis]

Quote by: another day By that I mean, if two couples are otherwise equal choices, should the man and woman be given the child over the man/man, woman/woman? To me it makes sense, but it would never be acceptable to operate like that.

No. Something doesn't sit right with that, at all. It would be like saying "blacks and whites have an equal right to ride the bus, but if there's just one seat left open, the white guy gets it."

[LadiesMan217]

I cannot say that I think it is healthier for the child to have two fathers or two mothers instead of one of each, but there is nothing in the Constitution that would disallow it so it should be legal by default.

Quote by: caphis No. Something doesn't sit right with that, at all. It would be like saying "blacks and whites have an equal right to ride the bus, but if there's just one seat left open, the white guy gets it."

Perhaps the child should have a say in which parents he/she gets, but then I cannot imagine any child choosing a homosexual couple for parents instead of a heterosexual couple, if only looking at them at face value. It is entirely possible for the hetero couple to be far worse parents than the homo couple and vice versa.

[grandpa]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 I cannot say that I think it is healthier for the child to have two fathers or two mothers instead of one of each, but there is nothing in the Constitution that would disallow it so it should be legal by default. Perhaps the child should have a say in which parents he/she gets, but then I cannot imagine any child choosing a homosexual couple for parents instead of a heterosexual couple, if only looking at them at face value.

Do non-indoctrinated children think so? Do they think homosexual
relationships are improper for raising children?

Grandpa h.

[yourmaster]

I disagree with homosexual adoption predominantly on ground of the reaction of their peers, as soon as the child's peers find out he has homosexual foster parents that child is going to be bullied for a long long time.
I wouldn't go as far as an all out ban, but I myself refuse to do it. It is up to the disgression of the prospected foster parents.

[oracle13]

I disagree with homosexual adoption predominantly on ground of the reaction of their peers, as soon as the child's peers find out he has homosexual foster parents that child is going to be bullied for a long long time.

This is irrational prejudice. During the civil rights movement there were many people fully opposed to black people gaining full civil rights. The fact that some people have irrational hatred shouldn't stop the legalisation of something that is clearly not an issue.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Oracle The other is that pre-existing prejudice towards gay couples adopting would leave their child vulnerable to bullying and would give him much lower self-esteem. But if we erased these unfounded prejudices there would be no harm.

And how do we go about erasing unfounded prejudices again? Because from where I'm sitting it seems like we've failed at doing that in anything else so why would unfounded prejudices against gay families be exempt?

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Gay relationships may be less stable than hetero ones, but it's also a fact that ethnic minority relationships are more stable than white relationships.

Proof?

This seems intuitively wrong. Not because of race but because of the wealth disparity present between races. While money doesn't equate happiness or stability per se, it does fulfill a very necessary requirement for the continued existence of a family.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: oracle13 This is irrational prejudice. During the civil rights movement there were many people fully opposed to black people gaining full civil rights. The fact that some people have irrational hatred shouldn't stop the legalisation of something that is clearly not an issue.

I wonder when indeed you will learn to read, I said that "I wouldn't go for an all out ban" which translates as I do not want to make it illegal. Christ you wonder why people come on a debate forum and not bother to read other posts properly, or are you just deliberately misinterpreting to annoy me?
I am gay, for the last time I am all for homosexual rights, I am all for homosexual equality, but when it comes to fostering the welfare of the child in question must come first.

[another day]

Quote by: caphis No. Something doesn't sit right with that, at all. It would be like saying "blacks and whites have an equal right to ride the bus, but if there's just one seat left open, the white guy gets it."

...

It's not like that at all. Adoption services must take into account the best situation for a child to be adopted into. It's common sense that a healthy and caring male/female couple is more suited to raising a healthy person than a healthy and caring gay couple. You can deny it all you want and brush this off as bigoted, but it's down to biology and the natural way a human develops.

[another day]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 This seems intuitively wrong. Not because of race but because of the wealth disparity present between races. While money doesn't equate happiness or stability per se, it does fulfill a very necessary requirement for the continued existence of a family.

If anything, a poor family is less likely to separate. A richer family has the means to split up and get separate houses, support each spouse, etc. A poor family often doesn't have that option.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: another day ... It's not like that at all. Adoption services must take into account the best situation for a child to be adopted into. It's common sense that a healthy and caring male/female couple is more suited to raising a healthy person than a healthy and caring gay couple. You can deny it all you want and brush this off as bigoted, but it's down to biology and the natural way a human develops.

You claim it's 'common sense' - but clearly it's not so common. Show some data.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: another day If anything, a poor family is less likely to separate. A richer family has the means to split up and get separate houses, support each spouse, etc. A poor family often doesn't have that option.

In my experience people do what they want regardless of the financial reality. It's one of the many reasons for many of the economic crises we face today.