Bea Smith Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 In mrs c post above all i read is how much the 'parents' want a kid, how about what the kid wants/needs ? ive highlighted that because i completely agree. As for how badly someone wants a child- that doesnt make them good parent material. I dont give a shit how badly a gay couple want to adopt, they have to be good enough for the kid in question. it seems i am being misheard- but hey- i love a good debate!!
Ani Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 I havn't said that Ani because that isnt my view, im saying the option should be there for children to take a home with gay parents rather than none at all. I have already stated that i think straight male/female parents would be a better option. Incidentally- no child is adopted against their will these days. Im not saying every unadopted child should be packed off to a gay couple like theyre a designer t shirt. I just feel that these children should have as many options as possible in the mine field of finding parents. My opinions are based on choice for the children seeking a home- not about sticking up for gay men. The only comment i have made to stick up for gay men is to say that being gay is not the same as being a peodophile. Thats just common feckin sense that seems to evade some people on here. I certainly do not think that adoption agencies should be in a situation where they let a gay couple adopt over a straight couple just because they dont want to appear discriminate or fill their % quota of gay adopotions. That is certainly the wrong path to go down. the childs interest should always be taking into account over any prospective parents wether they are straight / gay/ black/ white. Should a black child be adopted by a white family? Should a chinese child be adopted by a russian? Another thing that needs tackling are the restrictions on older people adopting. They're ideal to take in older kids, why stop it happening if the adults and child are willing?? i agree on the paedophile bit, if 2 gay blokes adopt a girl why would anyone even think they would abuse her ? it does seem to me that this being driven by everyone wanting not to discriminate against gay couple without due care and consideration being given to the potential impact on the kids.
Bea Smith Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 i agree on the paedophile bit, if 2 gay blokes adopt a girl why would anyone even think they would abuse her ? it does seem to me that this being driven by everyone wanting not to discriminate against gay couple without due care and consideration being given to the potential impact on the kids. So we are on the same track after all..... i previously mentioned gay blokes should adopt girls and gay woment adopt boys to alleviate a lot of the problems people are discussing. STOP COPYING ME!!
jules_darby Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 One of the most important things to a kid psychologically. whilst growing up is "fitting in". I was adopted when I was 6 weeks old, by a working/middle class white couple in their late 20's / early 30's who were unable to reproduce. I count myself very, very lucky and if people looked at us - we were a "normal family" and the fact that I was adopted wasn't immediately obvious. No matter how well educated, mentally stable, healthy and financially sound they may be, if I'd have been adopted by gays / lesbians / folk from an ethnic background, I'd have been given a hard time from other kids at school etc, as that's what kids do...No matter how good they may be at parenting, being "different" or having a "different family" as a kid would have in the vast majority of occasions, a negative impact on their life. But then weigh that up against me being brought up in a home - many have been found to have had paedo's working there, there's no family culture at all and the kids are infinitely more likely to turn to drugs / crime etc etc... Personally, I think that the best way is that all prospective parents have to pass criteria and then after that - 1st choice is parents that are hetero with the same ethnicity as the kid. After that if there's nobody suitable to parent, go down the diff skin colour / homosexuals route. In most cases it's a lesser evil than not being adopted at all, of that I'm pretty certain.
Sweep Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 One of the most important things to a kid psychologically. whilst growing up is "fitting in". I was adopted when I was 6 weeks old, by a working/middle class white couple in their late 20's / early 30's who were unable to reproduce. I count myself very, very lucky and if people looked at us - we were a "normal family" and the fact that I was adopted wasn't immediately obvious. No matter how well educated, mentally stable, healthy and financially sound they may be, if I'd have been adopted by gays / lesbians / folk from an ethnic background, I'd have been given a hard time from other kids at school etc, as that's what kids do...No matter how good they may be at parenting, being "different" or having a "different family" as a kid would have in the vast majority of occasions, a negative impact on their life. But then weigh that up against me being brought up in a home - many have been found to have had paedo's working there, there's no family culture at all and the kids are infinitely more likely to turn to drugs / crime etc etc... Personally, I think that the best way is that all prospective parents have to pass criteria and then after that - 1st choice is parents that are hetero with the same ethnicity as the kid. After that if there's nobody suitable to parent, go down the diff skin colour / homosexuals route. In most cases it's a lesser evil than not being adopted at all, of that I'm pretty certain. I don't think it can be put any better or any clearer than that
no balls Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 I don't think it can be put any better or any clearer than that Agreeed. No, I don'd think it is 'normal' for a gay couple to father/mother children as the nature of their relationship means they are unable to naturally, but as I said, a loving home is better than being in a Childrens Home. Thanks Jules, you put it far more elequently than myself.
Guest Dutch_Bird Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 I said Aids, no other illness, because Aids is rife amongst the homosexual community Heterosexual sex is responsible for more than 70 percent of new AIDS diagnoses among women in 2005. A little more than a quarter of women are infected through intravenous drug use. These patterns are fairly consistent across most racial and ethnic groups. While HIV has always been spread primarily through sex, more and more cases of HIV are being transmitted heterosexually. Biologically, women are more prone to heterosexual transmission of HIV. Research has shown that the virus is more easily passed from men to women during sexual intercourse. Most women with AIDS were diagnosed between the ages of 25 and 44, indicating that many were likely infected with HIV at a relatively young age. The impact on teen girls is significant, as girls represent half of HIV cases reported among teens ages 13-19. Children born to women who use needles are the leading cases of HIV/AIDS. Babies, not homosexual community, have more cases of aids/hiv. Babies born to straight women.
Smiffs Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 There is no such thing as homosexuality, it's just laziness Funniest thing I have read on here in years.
Traf Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Kind of "taking the path of least resistance" I'd have thought it was more resistance. Ronnie O'Sullivan informed me that the tight Brown on the bottom cushion tends to be harder to pot than the wide open easy Pink.
boltonways Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 I'd have thought it was more resistance. Ronnie O'Sullivan informed me that the tight Brown on the bottom cushion tends to be harder to pot than the wide open easy Pink. We don't really know what the consequences of gay couples being allowed to adopt children will be. Only time will tell. We have already noticed that Gay couples are 'divorcing' from civil partnerships as quickly as hetrosexuals are from marriages. Therefore the child could just as likely end up, back with social services than when we did't allow gay couples to adopt. Personally I think the whole thing has to be carefully monitored, and the RC Church should have been allowed an exemption (we allow exemptions for other things). Some people on here seem to be coparing hetrosexuality unfavourably with homosexuality. I think we should stop unhelpful comparisons. Hopefully children will get use to the situation and in the long run teasing about homosexuality will stop. The older folk, like myself, who grew up when homosexuality was illegal, will always feel nervous about the consequences of gay adoption. We'll just have to get use to the situation. As for God, does he exist? and if he does, one can only asume he approves as Britain (and the earth for that matter) is yet to be completely flooded as punishment for our sins. Unless of course you think global warming is God taking revenge for the world's sins. In which case God would be better talking to TB (a quick email would do).
Smiffs Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Its a load of old w??nk. We're pandering to the f??ckin minorities again, hoping that it will be OK. Two queers might well be good decent folk and pass all the relevant criteria, but what happens when the kid tops himself becuase he is being bullied for having 'freaks' for parents. But in the real world, the nanny state say the majorities can't shit without some form of risk assessment. Load of bollocks.
boltonways Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Its a load of old w??nk. We're pandering to the f??ckin minorities again, hoping that it will be OK. Two queers might well be good decent folk and pass all the relevant criteria, but what happens when the kid tops himself becuase he is being bullied for having 'freaks' for parents. But in the real world, the nanny state say the majorities can't shit without some form of risk assessment. Load of bollocks. But kids top themselves everyday cause they have freaks for parents. In fact I don't know too many kids who don't think there parents arent freaks of one sort or another. It's a crazy world out there. Life will go on as it's always done.
Smiffs Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 but if they top themselves BECAUSE they have queer parents and can't cope with it, then in todays blame society who will carry the can? The nonces in parliament or some civil servant who was told what to do in the first place?
boltonways Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 but if they top themselves BECAUSE they have queer parents and can't cope with it, then in todays blame society who will carry the can? The nonces in parliament or some civil servant who was told what to do in the first place? The parents. Parents always carry the can.
philgerrard Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Anyroad, are we letting bummers adopt or not? i hope not
Smiley Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 'kin poofs looking after kids? what is society thinking of? no way! cannot be allowed.
Smiley Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 ive highlighted that because i completely agree. As for how badly someone wants a child- that doesnt make them good parent material. I dont give a shit how badly a gay couple want to adopt, they have to be good enough for the kid in question. it seems i am being misheard- but hey- i love a good debate!! I prefer a mass debate.
Recommended Posts