Gay adoption cannot possibly be in the best interests of the children?

Question

Recent adoption laws drafted by Blairs government don't allow exemptions for religious adoption agencies from the equality Act which outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services. so Blair will instead wrest control of the adoption of children from the churches into secular agencies. Another bullyboy tactic from a man affraid to stand up to any noisy minority pressure group for fear of losing votes and his office. In reality what effect would it have for him to stand up for once in his life and just say NO this is too much.

Also can anyone tell me where in "goods, facilities and services" the lives of children come. We have evolved as a species so that the male female family grouping is natures prefered best method of raising our children correctly. Who the hell do we think we are to think we can ride roughshod over 200,00o years of evolution. The psychological damage could be horrendous. Who speaks for the children here? Tony?

Not judging gay people. Live and let live, however children should not be used as pawns in a game of minority civil rights, Children have rights too. A right to be brought up the way Nature designed them to be

No, nobody is coming up with anything to justify why it is a good idea to use kids as guinea pigs in a social experiment that is un-neccessary

I'm seeing answers justifying it by the adults need to be a parent, not the childs best interest. that is purely selfish

Look throwing up a statement like " look how many abusive hetero parents there are" is nonesense, there would be the same ratio in the gay comunity, don't think there wouldnt. Not one person has come up with an argument for the childs mental well being in this situation

Answer 1

A recent newspaper poll indicated over 90% of those interviewed were against Gay Adoption.

New Labour having passed the legislation allowing no exemptions is yet another example of just what Tony Blair said would be a, "Listening Government."

Putting aside, for a while, who,is right and who is wrong may I ask the following:

Should the child's position be given more consideration than any other?

How will the child react to taunts at school from her peers that he/she has two mummies or two daddies?

Many will be too young to remember that in WW 1 and WW 2 thousands of individuals were conscripted into the armed forces to fight for freedom and the defence of the country.

However, provision was made for 'Conscientious Objectors' to appear before a Tribunal and state their case for exemption from Military Service on the grounds of Conscience.

Those who were successful were given non-combatant roles or allowed to remain in their current occupations.

What Tony Blair is doing now is to ride roughshod over any whose conscience does not allow them to accept the application of the new Adoption Regulations, without any appeal.

When the State is paramount and inflexible we live in a Stalinist Regime.

State control over the population has grown tremendously in the past ten years. Freedom of speech has been the biggest casualty of all. PC has been used most effectively as a brainwashing deviice which, under the banner, of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, equal rights and 'human rights', have seriously removed the possibility of any civilised debate being allowed under any circumstances.

Finally, in a number of previous answers the ASSUMPTION has been made that only straight couples can be violent towards children and that Gay couples ALWAYS provide a loving home environment.

To Homer J Simpson: Wrong, I have made the case for an open and rational debate. You have made the assumption I am against gays full stop.

This question begs serious debate and not sledgehammer blows from an entrenched postion. This is the problem in Britain today, most people refuse to listen to, or examine, any views which conflict with theirs. We have enough extremists without adding to their numbers. I include in this category all the dogmatic Gays, Anti Gays, Religious Bodies, Anti religious bodies, Brainwashers and Control Freaks.

Answer 2

I did a research paper in freshman English about the topic. I found uncountable studies that showed no negatives effects on a child raised by gay couples. In fact most children in the study showed a higher state of emotional security and self esteem. I always was of the opinion that you should need a license to even have a child. So many kids are being brought into this world so individuals can use them as “golden tickets” to make money from welfare. You need a license to do so many things in this world yet any slob can have a child. Yet the people who want to have children but cant are forced to go under a long an tedious adoption process which involves background checks, income and asset evaluation, parent counseling, and psychological evaluation. If anyone (gay or straight) can convince an adoption agency then they should be allowed to adopt. Those who would argue otherwise have a political agenda motivated by their own personal beliefs. Many people hate gays. Why? I have no idea and probably will never know. Mostly religious reasons I suspect. I wander why so many religious figures oppose the issue. There are certainly so many other sins that warrant more attention. I never saw a Christian group dedicated to the prevention of pride or sloth. I guess that’s the appeal of Christianity. You get to pick and choose which rules apply to you and damn everyone else who doesn’t think like you. You can lie, have premarital sex, cheat on your wife, not go to church, eat pork, work on Sunday but still have enough time to say homosexuality is wrong. I hope people out there retain their dignity and character by not allowing an unfounded prejudice to interpret right or wrong. I guess the answer to my question is…This child’s welfare should be taken into account and the sexuality of the parent(s) should not be a factor to consider.

Answer 3

I think adoption should be through both types of groups but regulated. I think the family in midwest US who put their adopted (9 I think) children in cages at night are a example that male/female couples can be just as deterimental....Our need to keep marrige a male/female term (which by the way I agree with) doesn't mean evolution, its history and dominance and lack of information on the human physical body and all its complexity. Don't judge the parenting or morals of a person(s) by their genetic make-up- but by their deeds and situation. Civil Unions are a right I think, though I am hung up on the marrige word, and the parenting of a child is done with love, intelligence and intent and that is not based on gender,color or such. Children are our future, we must be careful, but also be examples- it is a hard road.

Answer 4

How can you state this when so many people all over the world are gay, bisexual, queer, or a lesbian? These people also do wish to have children, theres nothing wrong with adopting a child when you are parents of the same sex, you still have the same needs or wants that two parents of the same sex would want. Every couple sooner or later will want sex, and a family, whether gay or straight. Therefore i belive that if a gay couple wishes to adopt or artificially insererate they should be able to, as well as straight couples should be treated the same.
The only realy difference between gay and straight sex is their sexual prefrence, what feels good, and what feels right.

Answer 5

What's wrong with gays raising children?

Let's think about this from an evolutionary standpoint.

It's theorized that Homosexuality evolved as a means of controlling the population. If a population's density gets too high, a percentage of that population is born gay to reduce further breeding.

Now, we have all these kids who need to be adopted, and we have a percentage of the population incapable of having children through sexual intercourse. These folks still have all the nurturing and parenting instincts of a Heterosexual.

Clearly, one of the intentions is for these folks to raise children who need homes, unless of course you're going to go in for Eugenics and make the absurd claim that any kid who needs adoption clearly needs to be removed from the gene pool anyway due to inferior genetics.

I know a few lesbian couples who are trying to have a child through artificial insemination. One reason they're doing this is because it's a fraction of the cost of adoption. If it were easier for people to adopt kids, and we'd let gays adopt, these couples would already be raising a child who is in need.

Answer 6

Well I just think that in this increasingly secular world children have become an appendage to be sent for pillar to post being looked after by everyone else apart from their real parent. My view is that children need two parents, one of each. They need those parents to want them and want to spend time with them. And not give the job to someone else. I just can't see any good coming from this government. They say freedom freedom and in reality they are eating into peoples lives and promoting fear and decent into political correctness which undermines peoples freedom of thought and ability to lead a decent life.

Answer 7

In an ideal world Nature's way might be best, but you have to face reality: isn't it better for unwanted children to have a loving family than to be left in bloody awful orphanages or to suffer at the hands of abusive natural parents? Does it really matter whether the new family is male/female? Doesn't it matter more that the kiddies are loved and looked after?

Answer 8

You are clearly starting out with an opinion, and then trying to find facts to back it up. You are ignoring a plethora of facts. Even if a male/female partnership IS the best environment for raising children, you have to have effective parents in a loving relationship. How often does that actually happen? And is the fantasy of a perfect male/female parentship worth denying kids the very REAL possibility of being raised by two loving same-sex parents?

Answer 9

I'm sorry but what bollcks! if children have the right to be brought up the way nature intended and its so wrong for them to be otherwise why not start with prosecuting all the so called 'men' who dump their children on their mothers to raise alone?

In this day and age children are lucky to have 1 loving parent , 2 is a bonus whether man or woman , woman and woman or man and man.

Answer 10

Personally, I believe what we finally accept as norms are socialized...yes I am something stucturalist.
I am saying that the social norm for relationships exist in heterosexuality today and may seem preternatural..... but rationally, a partnership of same sexes heighten instead of reducing the possibilty of raising a emotionally balanced child as there will exist the environment of compatability that only two people who can understand each other to the highest degree may possess... and that is what homosexual relationships possess