For those of you who can't see senserolleyes lets try a different approach lets say 2 friends of the same sex decided to adopt would this be ok?
If the very best situation for a child to be raised in is with a loving mother and a loving father, then I think the most perfect family would be a gay couple and a lesbian couple living together with children of both sexes! Then they would have double the perfection, and nobody is without the relevant role model. Genius
My vote goes to Jaybird for 'President of Social Engineering for the Good of Future Generations'.
For gays there is no next generation unless they have the gene material from the opposite sex.
So? This and all your other points reduce back to your one argument that adoptive parents must comprise of a male and female and that children need, above anything else, the influence of both sexes. I struggle greatly with this viewpoint.
Do children not need reason, respect, discipline etc. rather than simply a man and a woman, to the exclusion of other family units.
And even so, in what bubble do you think gay adoptive parents live? A world only consisting of only or mainly men or women? Not so, in case you actually think that. This supposed ideal you are aiming for of male/female balance has rarely been achieved if you want to check in with reality.
As for the argument regarding two friends of the same sex adopting, this is no different to the answer you would give to two friends of the opposite sex who wish to adopt. Equating two friends of the same sex, with the union of two gay people bonded for life in love is as unreasonable comparing it to the union of two hetero people bonded for life in love.
It's been the tried and tested method for tens of thousands of years
What on earth are you talking about?
Of course children need all of the things you mentioned but they also need balance.
Neither would I.I would not agree with 2 friends adopting whether they be bachelors or spinsters.
The point is gay couples are not the same as straight couples the mix just isn't there.
Sure women were subjugated for tens of thousands of years, but nobody thinks that's appropriate anymore. Let's all hope for a bit of progress please.
Your definition of balance is extremely limiting. A man, a woman. And now I see you are adding children to the family unit. Are units that don't include children not family units?
They are entirely alike, other than the obstacles your thinking tries to put in their way. I'm beginning to think that you actually want them to remain different, as you can't come to accept they are no different to you. I'm assuming here that you are not gay, but I don't know that. At the end of the day, the man/woman argument is really your only one. I'm not clear you have any more substance to your arguments. As such, I can't really debate this much further with you. I sign off. Best of luck.
You keep talking about this balance, this mix. Can you define it? Maleness and femaleness? It sounds so....vague. There are many different kinds of people, and many different types of couples. Why is gender such a defining attribute?
One man, one woman and a few kids has NOT been a t&T method for thousands of years, thats a modern definition of a family. Lots of men, lots of women, different generations living together and sharing the raising of children is the traditional, long term, human method. Or one man, lots of wives, servants, tonnes of children, if you prefer that traditional model. There are a few others, not 1 man 1 women 1/2/3 kids.
The modern nuclear family is a novelty, you'll need a better argument than "thats how its meant to be", since its clearly a new idea in the scheme of human evolution.
OK, just to throw a spanner in the works.
Jack & Jill get married and have children.
Jill gets killed in a freak accident leaving Jack to raise the babies.
Jack subsequently realises that he has feelings for a gay man (let's call him Tom).
One thing leads to another and they enter a relationship and Tom moves into Jacks house.
Is this scenario acceptable to the posters who are against gay adoption?
If not, why not, and who should raise the children and why ?
Should a person who previously had a child in a heterosexual relationship be allowed to move onto a gay relationship and raise the child in that relationship?
OK, so what balance...Children need the balance
to which you repliedjaybird said:You keep talking about this balance, this mix. Can you define it? Maleness and femaleness? It sounds so....vague. There are many different kinds of people, and many different types of couples. Why is gender such a defining attribute?
But yet you say....None of this has anything to do with gays adopting.
andThere is no injustice to gays not being allowed to adopt, they are not a family unit and can never be a family unit.
S.L.F said:I keep on saying children need the influence of both sexes.
MrMan and S.L.F both previously answered this question with the general gist of "whatever's legal, and I would trust the father to make the right moral decision"(I'm paraphrasing here but its around post 90 if you wanna look)
Jack is the childrens father so what choices he makes will affect his children for the rest of their lives I would hope he would choose wisely
Are units that don't include children not family units?
No they are not because after you get married what people say is they are starting a family.
I think this is a bizarre narrow view TBH.
OK, let me get this straight, S.L.F., 'cos you're losing me now.....
When does a family start when 2 people get married or when they have a child (by whatever means)?
My view is when they have a child.
and Guam and Andorra . . apparently not. Or maybe the rest of the world is wrong.So basically all these countries are not putting the interest of the child first, right? I mean, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands...they don't know what's best for the child...
Indeed, but do they need to be a relative or be a widow or a widower (as I've just learned).Single people may adopt in Ireland.
I've vaguely kept on following this thread just to see how further vexing SLF and MrMan were going to get, then I went and checked how may places actually grant same sex couples the right to adopt, and in wikipedia I read:
"Legal status around the world
Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in Guam, Andorra, Belgium, Denmark[17], Iceland,[18] the Netherlands, Norway,[19] Sweden, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, some parts of Australia, Canada and some parts of the United States.
In Germany,[20] and Israel "stepchild-adoption" is permitted, so that the partner in a civil union can adopt the natural (or sometimes even adopted) child of his or her partner."
It then goes on to say:
"In the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Hungary and some other countries, there is a universal adoption policy, meaning anyone deemed to be capable of providing a healthy stable family home, whether straight, LGBT, married, single, cohabiting or unmarried, may apply for adoption. Same-sex couples may also foster children in the Republic of Ireland as there is a dire need for foster parents."
I got it from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption
So basically all these countries are not putting the interest of the child first, right? I mean, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands...they don't know what's best for the child...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?