Adoption

[lothar]

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.

I don't know if you've looked at any numbers lately, but there are a lot of kids in foster homes that can't find a home.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Those of you that voted "No, they should never be denied" rather than "No, unless a heterosexual couple is better qualified in ways not related to sexual orientation" are basically saying even if the heterosexual couple is better qualified, the homosexual couple should never be denied?
I don't get that...

So you'd support adopting a child to homosexual couples over heterosexual ones in ALL cases, regardless of qualifications not related to sexual orientation?

I think the op meant for the never be denied option to mean that their sexual orientation should not be a factor at all.

 

[Wreckem]

..

 

[lothar]

I think the op meant for the never be denied option to mean that their sexual orientation should not be a factor at all.

But in the last option, their sexual orientation isn't a factor at all anyway.
"No, unless a heterosexual couple is better qualified in ways not related to sexual orientation"

Adoption should go to the most qualified parents. The fact that they may be homosexual or heterosexual is irrelevant.
That's what the last option means and that's I voted for.

The other option says "No, they should never be denied".
There are no if's, and, or but's in that equation.
Is that option supposed to be some sort of "Affirmative action" like idea for homosexuals that you're giving it to a particular homosexual couple that has already been determined to be less qualified in areas not related to sexual orientation?

 

[werepossum]

But in the last option, their sexual orientation isn't a factor at all anyway.
"No, unless a heterosexual couple is better qualified in ways not related to sexual orientation"

Adoption should go to the most qualified parents. The fact that they may be homosexual or heterosexual is irrelevant.
That's what the last option means and that's I voted for.

The other option says "No, they should never be denied".
There are no if's, and, or but's in that equation.
Is that option supposed to be some sort of "Affirmative action" like idea for homosexuals that you're giving it to a particular homosexual couple that has already been determined to be less qualified in areas not related to sexual orientation?

I took the third option to mean that couples are either qualified or not (i.e. there is no better or worse qualified, merely qualified or unqualified) and therefore children should be doled out on a first-come basis to any qualified couple, same sex or otherwise, without trying to determine who is or isn't best for the child. That matches the second option, which implies a minimum qualification for regular (hetero) couples such that, as long as any hetero couples meet the minimum, gay couples would automatically be disqualified, while still allowing gay couples to adopt if no hetero couples meeting the bare minimum were to be found. Therefore your choices would be:
(1) Never!
(2) Maybe, but only if the supply of hetero couples meeting the bare minimum is exhausted.
(3) Yes, as long as gay couples meet the bare minimum they should be allotted children on a first-come, first-served basis, without regards to sexual orientation.
(4) Yes, but the best qualified couple (considering everything relevant) should get preference in adoption.

But since twenty people chose the third option, I suspect most people took it as merely a knee-jerk reaction about whether sexuality should be considered at all, in spite of the wording of the last option. You could come up with a lot of difference permutations - for instance, I'd rate a lesbian couple higher than a gay couple and lower than a hetero couple for raising a prepubescent girl because I think a lesbian could answer "dad questions" better than a gay man could answer "girl plumbing questions". But in the end you could easily come up with more permutations than respondents. There's also probably a great tendency to overweight such factors if they are considered at all. In the case of a single dad raising a girl child, unless he's independently wealthy he probably thinks finding enough time and energy to raise the child is a more daunting problem than answering the "mom questions" or "girl plumbing questions." Single parents make do, therefore gay parents would do the same, and two parents in a stable, loving home beats one. Especially if the child has already lost one set of parents, start him/her out with a backup!

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The ops wording is confusing. It should have been like this:

1. They should never be allowed to adopt
2. They should only be allowed to adopt if no minimally qualified hetero couples are available
3. They should be allowed to adopt but some degree of preference should be given to hetero couples
4. Sexual orientation shouldn't be a factor at all.

 

[werepossum]

The ops wording is confusing. It should have been like this:

1. They should never be allowed to adopt
2. They should only be allowed to adopt if no minimally qualified hetero couples are available
3. They should be allowed to adopt but some degree of preference should be given to hetero couples
4. Sexual orientation shouldn't be a factor at all.

LOL Which is how I read it, albeit in slightly different order.

 

[Craig234]

Those of you that voted "No, they should never be denied" rather than "No, unless a heterosexual couple is better qualified in ways not related to sexual orientation" are basically saying even if the heterosexual couple is better qualified, the homosexual couple should never be denied?
I don't get that...

So you'd support adopting a child to homosexual couples over heterosexual ones in ALL cases, regardless of qualifications not related to sexual orientation?

Yes, I did and here's why.

1. The question, as I already said and you apparently didn't read, is flawed. What about gay parents who are better qualified than them? What about gay parents who are better qualified than straight parents, should they get to take a child that would have gone to the straight parents also? The option ONLY addresses 'better qualified straights'.

2. I don't think adoptions are or should be based on the 'best qualified' parents. You don't take a child and have a bidding between parents to compete for them.

Rich couples don't get 'the pick of the litter' over those with less, for example.

Parents should have to be qualified - and that's the end of 'preferential treatment'.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, I did and here's why.

1. The question, as I already said and you apparently didn't read, is flawed. What about gay parents who are better qualified than them? What about gay parents who are better qualified than straight parents, should they get to take a child that would have gone to the straight parents also? The option ONLY addresses 'better qualified straights'.

2. I don't think adoptions are or should be based on the 'best qualified' parents. You don't take a child and have a bidding between parents to compete for them.

Rich couples don't get 'the pick of the litter' over those with less, for example.

Parents should have to be qualified - and that's the end of 'preferential treatment'.

This is the point of view that says adoption is for the benefit of the adoptive parents, not the child. Establish a minimum qualification and dole them out first come, first serve, and the Devil take the hindmost.

If you view orphaned and/or abandoned children as benefits to be equitably distributed by government, I suppose this makes sense. It also has the benefit of being the easiest system to fairly administer - no bother about deciding whether the ability to afford private school and a topnotch college is better or worse than a parent at home, just whomever comes up next in the queue of approved adoptive parents.

 

[lothar]

Yes, I did and here's why.

1. The question, as I already said and you apparently didn't read, is flawed. What about gay parents who are better qualified than them? What about gay parents who are better qualified than straight parents, should they get to take a child that would have gone to the straight parents also? The option ONLY addresses 'better qualified straights'.

2. I don't think adoptions are or should be based on the 'best qualified' parents. You don't take a child and have a bidding between parents to compete for them.

Rich couples don't get 'the pick of the litter' over those with less, for example.

Parents should have to be qualified - and that's the end of 'preferential treatment'.

1.) I didn't read anyone's post before I posted or voted. I read the poll question and voted based on the choices given. You apparently didn't read the last poll option. "No, unless a heterosexual couple is better qualified in ways not related to sexual orientation". The word, "No" already addresses all your what if's questions.

What about homosexual parents who are better qualified than heterosexual parents? The word "No" addresses that question.
What about homosexual parents who are less qualified than heterosexual parents? The words "unless a heterosexual couple is better qualified in ways not related to sexual orientation" already addresses that question.

2.) It is you that is automatically equating the words "best qualified" to rich couples and bidding wars.
Does anyone intelligent really think Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, or Kim Kardashian would be more qualified to adopt a child over a regular family that earns $50-60k/year?
Yeah, lets send all kids to celebrity tabloid actors and millionaire gangsta rappers.

 

[Rocksinhead]

Someone post the link to that story of the 11 year old boy whom wanted a sex change operation (was raised by two lesbians).

Long as they then post 10 more examples of boys who wanted a sex change operation that were raised by a hetero couple.

 

[cybrsage]

What about mutated sea bass?

Hmmm....tough one. Have to do more research first. For now, we should err on the side of caution and say no lasers for them either.

 

[zsdersw]

Hmmm....tough one. Have to do more research first. For now, we should err on the side of caution and say no lasers for them either.

 

[sm625]

The fact that only 1/3 of voters answered with an unqualified no just goes to show how people's minds have been warped. Who gives a crap. A single person should be able to adopt. A couple should be able to adopt. A frickin polyamorous pair of midget triplets should be able to adopt. Who gives a damn. Either they are decent human beings or they are not. Kids dont care about this stuff at all. It has no effect and no bearing on them whatsoever, until they reach their teens. And even then its still a petty issue compared to the others.