As you all know, there's always a lot of hoo-hah surrounding gay adoption. Lots of people are for it, lots of people are against it. Now in the UK, every adoption agency has to be open to homosexual couples.
Since no everyone is going to agree with this then why, when a parent or guardian or whatever gives a child up for adoption can't they sign a form to say that they are fine with their child being adopted by a same-sex couple...or in some cases, not fine with it. Whatever they decide....legally they are still the parents at that point and it should be their choice as to who their child is adopted by.
I think that is fair for both sides of the arguement really...what do you think?
Or have I missed something and is this decision actually available to parents who are giving their children up for adoption?
2007-04-24 07:36:19 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Yes but if a parent is against gay adoption because of whatever reason such as religion then they ARE the parent and they should decide.
I don't think that it makes you a bad person to give up your child for adoptions....there could be numerous circumstances that the parent could be in, not just drugs.
2007-04-24 07:45:49 · update #1
Weather a couple is gay or straight is not even the question here. The question you present is: do the people who give a child up for adoption have any rights to dictate what happens in the life of the child after adoption? In the US they have had for many years now what is known as an "Open Adoption" where the birth parent or parents have some connection even after the adoption takes place. In these type of adoptions I would say the parent might retain some say so, but in all other types then the person giving the child up has no say so and should not be allowed any. So what is wrong with making all adoptions "Open"? Since not all adoptions are done for the well being of the child and some times because the birth parent was a minor or drug abuser or a number of other reasons then all adoptions cann't be "Open".
2007-04-24 07:41:18 · answer #1 · answered by The Eight Ball 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Here is the thing, I work with woman in these situations all the time.
Adoption agencies have made it possible for the mother to choose every single detail about who adopts their child.
From sexual orientation, Race, Wealth, everything.
They are doing this so woman wont get an abortion over and over, and people will stop saying that children are born to disadvantages...
Its actually, now a days, the mother decision..and she can give her child up for adoption and know her child will have a good life.
There are also ways now that woman can give their child up, and still be part of the child's life. As long the the adoption parents agree...and the mother can find someone too adopt their child on those terms...
Its a great thing now...Not like it was long ago
2007-04-24 07:43:31 · answer #2 · answered by chersa 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's retarded. The adoption agency decides that. The parents give up all rights. If you were to allow this then the next step is more options. Like if they want a white family, with blonde hair and blue eyes to raise their kids.
Let the kids go to the best homes. If that's a GLBT home, then great. Better than the kid going to a crummy hetero home if those are the only options.
The adoption agency looks out for what's in the best interest of the children. Not what's in the best interest of their genetic parents.
Their genetic parents are just sperm and egg donors basically, with some incubation, they aren't the real parents in it, they should get no say.
If you open this door, it goes down an ugly road.
2007-04-24 10:03:06 · answer #3 · answered by Luis 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
because that would still inspire people to mark the form down for no reason, that's not the problem though. most people don't think that homosexual couples can raise a child, yet it's been proven time and time again that so long as the child is in a loving enviroment, then the parents don't matter, whether gay, straight or single.
they seem to miss the fact that plenty of homosexual couples have actual kids of their own, and raise them perfectly normally, get decent jobs, make friends etc, and it doesn't have an effect on the childs orientation or basic ethics either.
2007-04-25 01:15:04 · answer #4 · answered by §ilver 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Is this new?
My partner and I were approved for adoption by a Scottish local authority 5 years ago and matched to a child soon after by another. Unfortunately, before the placing could go ahead, both our mothers died within 6 months of each other and things fell apart for a while.
2007-04-27 10:23:15 · answer #5 · answered by andegar 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know what i think...
A parent puts a child in adoption.... They're parental rights are gone.
If biological parents can choose whether the child can be with a gay couple, what is stopping the biological parents from saying they don't want a black family to adopt the child.
Hypothetically speaking if adoption agencies gave them that choice then it would ultimately take away some of the rights of the adoptive parents.
2007-04-24 07:44:30 · answer #6 · answered by Advocate 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I suppose the parents of the child could do that - limit the child's opportunities to get adopted. I think it just depends on how long they want the child to be bounced from foster home to foster home. I know there are so many kids out there now with no restrictions on them - and no chance of anyone taking them.
2007-04-24 08:11:51 · answer #7 · answered by Tina Goody-Two-Shoes 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There should not be a "compromise" to the rights of a whole group of people. It would be like the marriage rights vs the civil union compromise. It's still not a marriage and therefore gives one group more or better rights then another, not equal.
I didn't know about the UK adoption thing. Good for them for having adoption being open to all families wanting to.
2007-04-24 07:44:54 · answer #8 · answered by MindStorm 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think by the point that parents lose a child who is adopted out, the parents are too whacked out (drugs, alcohol, mental problems) to care who takes the kid. If they cared that much the kid wouldn't be up for adoption in the first place. In the state I live in, there is a big push to let gays be foster and/or adoptive parents but so far it hasn't gone through.
2007-04-24 07:41:49 · answer #9 · answered by Stimpy 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think the child's right to be raised in a loving home and not in an institution should trump the soon-to-be-ex-parent's right to decide that fate for him or her. Similarly in the US all land deed restrictions that refer to race or nationality are automatically void by overriding state law, regardless of the intentions of the previous land owner.
2007-04-24 09:33:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋