Adoption

[werepossum]

I don't believe it is a human right to adopt a child. Of course, denial should not be arbitrary either, but that's different from saying it's a right.

I definitely agree. Still, I chose the last option. I would prefer to give an adoptive child a mother and a father, all else being equal, but all else is rarely equal, and automatically disqualifying gay couples may mean giving a child to a marginal couple, single person, or keeping the child in foster care. Two loving, stable parents of any gender beats a single parent (though that's not necessarily true of all pairs of parents, obviously) but beyond that, a particular gay couple could provide a better home than a particular hetero couple.

In the end, adoption should always be what is best for the child, not what is "fair" for those who want to adopt. I would by preference restrict all adoptions to stable, married couples - if that excludes gays, fix that first - and give the child to the best family.

 

[zsdersw]

Gays decided to live a lifestyle in which no children will be produced.

Surrogate mothers and sperm-donating fathers.

That article should make everyone question how well gays can provide a stable family. An 11 year old wants a sex change? Something is wrong there.

I know what article you are talking, the picture showed the boy wearing glasses and dressed up like a girl.

Yes, because one story is enough to question the stability of every other homosexual couple's family.

I'm very thankful that people with your naive point of view are becoming fewer and fewer.

 

[MotF Bane]

Surrogate mothers and sperm-donating fathers.



Yes, because one story is enough to question the stability of every other homosexual couple's family.

I'm very thankful that people with your naive point of view are becoming fewer and fewer.

I suspect many of those bigots still exist, but they can't turn on the computer to spew their hatred and ignorance.

.

 

[fskimospy]

The last one was also my pick. It's essentially the same to the option you're requesting.

Well it's a bit different, but I found that last option silly so I didn't pick it. There are currently so many more children in need of adoptive parents than there are people willing to take them it's not even funny.

 

[zsdersw]

I think it's about what's best for the child, and fear or apprehension toward homosexuals.. whether driven by religious belief or something else.. is doing a disservice to the child.

Remaining in orphanages or otherwise in the hands of the state/city or a private agency is not desirable. Any kind of fostering arrangement is better than that.. by varying degrees.

I do agree that having a mother and father is the ideal, but when a suitable mother/father cannot be found (as is all too often the case) a homosexual couple is not an option that should be automatically discarded.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So a qualified heterosexual couple doesn't have the right to adopt a child? I wonder why do you believe that?

If a religious adoption agency prevents one which is not to abide by the former's sensibilities then I'm dead set against it.

 

[dank69]

The last one was also my pick. It's essentially the same to the option you're requesting.

Similar, but not the same. Basically I believe that everyone (single parents, hetero unmarried, homosexual), as long as they are qualified, should have the right to adopt children.

To all the people saying children should be raised by a man and a woman, would you say a single person should nnot have the right to adopt a child?

Take it even further, if a couple gets divorced, should the children be taken away and put in a m/f couple's care until one of the parents enters into a m/f relationship again?

Where do you draw the line, and more importantly, why?

 

[jhbball]

I like this answer in the poll

"Yes, unless no qualified heterosexual couple can be found in the same timeframe"

Gays decided to live a lifestyle in which no children will be produced. They should not take children away from parents who by some condition or illness can not reproduce.




That article should make everyone question how well gays can provide a stable family. An 11 year old wants a sex change? Something is wrong there.

I know what article you are talking, the picture showed the boy wearing glasses and dressed up like a girl.

Educate yourself you stupid hick.

 

[Mursilis]

Similar, but not the same. Basically I believe that everyone (single parents, hetero unmarried, homosexual), as long as they are qualified, should have the right to adopt children.

To all the people saying children should be raised by a man and a woman, would you say a single person should nnot have the right to adopt a child?

Take it even further, if a couple gets divorced, should the children be taken away and put in a m/f couple's care until one of the parents enters into a m/f relationship again?

Where do you draw the line, and more importantly, why?

I'd be opposed to most (BUT NOT ALL) single people adopting children simply because it would probably involve stretching one person's resources beyond what one person can handle. Anyone experienced with children (and I have four) knows that they take up a huge amount of time, money, attention, patience, etc., beyond what most single parents (and sometimes even two parents!) can manage. Just on that basis, a two-parent family is generally going to preferable to a one-parent family. But of course I acknowledge that there can be exceptions - some single parents have enough resources to hire help, not have to work, work out of the house, have extended family to help, etc., so I don't think a blanket ban against all single parents is useful. As others have already said, the standard should be what's best for the child.

 

[dank69]

I'd be opposed to most (BUT NOT ALL) single people adopting children simply because it would probably involve stretching one person's resources beyond what one person can handle. Anyone experienced with children (and I have four) knows that they take up a huge amount of time, money, attention, patience, etc., beyond what most single parents (and sometimes even two parents!) can manage. Just on that basis, a two-parent family is generally going to preferable to a one-parent family. But of course I acknowledge that there can be exceptions - some single parents have enough resources to hire help, not have to work, work out of the house, have extended family to help, etc., so I don't think a blanket ban against all single parents is useful. As others have already said, the standard should be what's best for the child.

'Qualified' implies the person(s) can show that they can financially support the adopted child. So ignore that aspect and tell me why you think a qualified single person should have the right to adopt but a qualified gay couple should not.

 

[cybrsage]

2 parent families find it easier to juggle the work to life ratio, simply due to being able to split the required time off between them. This, of course, a generalization.

 

[Mursilis]

'Qualified' implies the person(s) can show that they can financially support the adopted child. So ignore that aspect and tell me why you think a qualified single person should have the right to adopt but a qualified gay couple should not.

I'll do that as soon as you show me where I said a qualified gay couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. Your reading comprehension needs work. I already said I picked the same option you did in the poll, and you even quoted that post!

 

[Riparian]

I like this answer in the poll

"Yes, unless no qualified heterosexual couple can be found in the same timeframe"

Gays decided to live a lifestyle in which no children will be produced. They should not take children away from parents who by some condition or illness can not reproduce.

Are you ok with denying heterosexual married couples from adopting who are able to have children but choose to adopt instead of having their own biological children?

 

[werepossum]

I think it's about what's best for the child, and fear or apprehension toward homosexuals.. whether driven by religious belief or something else.. is doing a disservice to the child.

Remaining in orphanages or otherwise in the hands of the state/city or a private agency is not desirable. Any kind of fostering arrangement is better than that.. by varying degrees.

I do agree that having a mother and father is the ideal, but when a suitable mother/father cannot be found (as is all too often the case) a homosexual couple is not an option that should that should be automatically discarded.

That's a well-reasoned position, especially since it goes against your own interests. Congrats on your maturity.

Oddly, as a straight man I'd go a bit farther. When a child is not of school age, I'd prefer a gay couple with one homemaker to a hetero couple who must both work, all else being equal. While I too agree that having a mother and father is the ideal, I think having a parent at home (as opposed to day care) is preferable to having an ideal gender mix. Once a child is school age, it's not much of an issue of course.

 

[dank69]

I'll do that as soon as you show me where I said a qualified gay couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. Your reading comprehension needs work. I already said I picked the same option you did in the poll, and you even quoted that post!

I am speaking specifically about 'rights.' You seem to have missed this and, funnily enough, accuse me of failed reading comprehension. Check yourself.

 

[dank69]

2 parent families find it easier to juggle the work to life ratio, simply due to being able to split the required time off between them. This, of course, a generalization.

How does that apply to gay couples, specifically? Oh, haha, look who I'm asking. Silly me. Nevermind.

 

[monovillage]

I looked for "No, the best interests of the child are the first priority" but didn't find it.

 

[cybrsage]

How does that apply to gay couples, specifically? Oh, haha, look who I'm asking. Silly me. Nevermind.

I'd be opposed to most (BUT NOT ALL) single people adopting children...

Yeah, you just made yourself look stupid. Does it bother you that you cannot follow along in a chronologically based thread?

 

[First]

I like this answer in the poll

"Yes, unless no qualified heterosexual couple can be found in the same timeframe"

Gays decided to live a lifestyle in which no children will be produced. They should not take children away from parents who by some condition or illness can not reproduce.




That article should make everyone question how well gays can provide a stable family. An 11 year old wants a sex change? Something is wrong there.

I know what article you are talking, the picture showed the boy wearing glasses and dressed up like a girl.

Wow, your posts are all sorts of fail.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I definitely agree. Still, I chose the last option. I would prefer to give an adoptive child a mother and a father, all else being equal, but all else is rarely equal, and automatically disqualifying gay couples may mean giving a child to a marginal couple, single person, or keeping the child in foster care. Two loving, stable parents of any gender beats a single parent (though that's not necessarily true of all pairs of parents, obviously) but beyond that, a particular gay couple could provide a better home than a particular hetero couple.

In the end, adoption should always be what is best for the child, not what is "fair" for those who want to adopt. I would by preference restrict all adoptions to stable, married couples - if that excludes gays, fix that first - and give the child to the best family.

This. I believe that all else equal it is better for a child to be with a heterosexual couple than a gay couple or a single parent. The tricky part is how much you weigh that against other factors.

 

[Atreus21]

Religious freedom should stop when it infringes on other people's rights.

Such as the right to religious freedom?

 

[dank69]

Such as the right to religious freedom?

What are you implying here? That religious freedom trumps all? Should we start allowing men to stone their wives to death for wearing inappropriate clothing because they are islamic and we can never infringe their right to religious freedom?

 

[werepossum]

This. I believe that all else equal it is better for a child to be with a heterosexual couple than a gay couple or a single parent. The tricky part is how much you weigh that against other factors.

Exactly. There will always be individual cases in which personal bias intrudes for or against gay adoptive parents, but categorically banning all gay couples means that in every case where a gay couple would be better than the available hetero couples, the child is denied the better choice. Weighing homosexuality versus a stay-at-home partner or a high income or physical similarity or whatever as a matter of policy is indeed extremely tricky, but worth doing to provide each child with the best possible option. Also, for many children it's not a question of being adopted to a straight or gay couple, but of being adopted or remaining in foster care. In my opinion, being adopted by any loving, stable gay couple beats being adopted by a single person, and being adopted by a single person beats foster care. Having all your eggs in one basket has to be better than having them in a hired basket. LOL

 

[Atreus21]

What are you implying here? That religious freedom trumps all? Should we start allowing men to stone their wives to death for wearing inappropriate clothing because they are islamic and we can never infringe their right to religious freedom?

I'd say the right to life trumps the right to religious freedom, yes.

 

[shadow9d9]

What if the adoption agency is a religious institution that doesn't approve of gays and gay marriage? Should the government be allowed to oppress their religious "freedom"?

"Religious freedom" should not allow you to openly discriminate, period.