we no longer live in an age where the idea of being gay or same sex marriage is taboo and rightly so i might add.
however my question to you is this; Should gay couples be allowed to adopt?
would it have any psychological effects on a child in later life? such as: an imbalance due to the lack of a father or mother figure or even bullying from school.
or do you think its perfectly ok for a gay couple to lovingly rear a child?
all views are welcome, please discuss.

Originally Posted by robertjordan

however my question to you is this; Should gay couples be allowed to adopt?
would it have any psychological effects on a child in later life?

How does this compare to the psychological effects of living in an orphanage? Most children waiting to be adopted never will be, so it seems like a less than perfect improvement in their condition is better than no improvement at all.

Originally Posted by robertjordan

we no longer live in an age where the idea of being gay or same sex marriage is taboo and rightly so i might add.
however my question to you is this; Should gay couples be allowed to adopt?

I soooo agree. In fact, I think we should do away with the concept of perversion. For instance, I love my dog. A lot. A lot a lot. If I should decide that he would make good sex partner, I think that I shouldn't have to hide that. I think people should accept me for that. Furthermore, I think that my dog and I should be allowed to adopt, since we could never have kids naturally. In all fairness, I think that my dog and I should be allowed to receive the special tax breaks and other government provided benefits that married couples receive. I might even break from tradition and adopt my dogs last name.. (Rover?). Seriously, there really shouldn't be any wrong or right, or morality on the whole.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

How does this compare to the psychological effects of living in an orphanage? Most children waiting to be adopted never will be, so it seems like a less than perfect improvement in their condition is better than no improvement at all.

yes but thats not what i asked you to consider! compare it to a heterosexual relationship not an orphanage.

I don't think there is any problem wish a homosexual couple adopting a child. The lack of a father figure, or whatever, is not a valid excuse to disallow the practice. Gay people do have male friends, you know?

Although I know of one example just last month where a single gay man tried to buy / bribe / adopt a female child from an 18 year old.. The car and $10k were "unrelated" gifts..

Personally I'd rather see a child in a loving gay family than with some of the trash I see with kids these days..

for gods sake stop going to extremes all the time.
dont compare gay adoption to an orphanage or bad heterosexual parenting. because
thats not relevant
just look at the proposition objectively.
can you do that?

Originally Posted by robertjordan

for gods sake stop going to extremes all the time.
dont compare gay adoption to an orphanage or bad heterosexual parenting. because
thats not relevant
just look at the proposition objectively.
can you do that?

You sure do like to run a tight ship on how you run your threads.

Lets see I'll try and not mess up... In my personal moral beliefs I disagree with the gay lifestyle, so my answer will be based off that belief that no good can come from it. I think in my own mind that it can't be good for a child to grow up with two moms or two dads.

Originally Posted by robertjordan

yes but thats not what i asked you to consider! compare it to a heterosexual relationship not an orphanage.

Think for a moment about what you're suggesting! With all due respect, it's idiotic. Or, to put it more kindly (but less truthfully) it makes no sense unless a person asking it lives in a fantasy world wholly unrelated to the place we call reality.

The alternative is an orphanage. Not a hetero couple, not a ride at Disney world, not the Lost DVD Box Set. The end result of disallowing homosexuals to adopt is that children who need adoption won't get it.

You're talking about a matter of legal policy. What value is there wondering whether children would be better off adopted by gay people or Hindus from Mars? The question that needs an answer, codified in law, is whether living under a roof with gay people is so brutally horrible that countless thousands of children are better off not being adopted, and living until they're 18 in orphanages.

The answer is self evident.

Originally Posted by robertjordan

for gods sake stop going to extremes all the time.
dont compare gay adoption to an orphanage or bad heterosexual parenting. because
thats not relevant
just look at the proposition objectively.
can you do that?

I thought I did! Look, almost any steady home that doesn't physically, sexually, or mentally abuse a child would be better than the foster care system. That said, I believe adoption agencies disqualify people who want to adopt for a variety of reasons. I believe that list of reasons may include some or all of the following:

1) Lack of income to support a child
2) History of abuse
3) Prior Felony arrests
4) History of drug addiction
5) Inability to physically care for a child
6) Putting ones sexual perversions on the application form (Frequent use of prostitutes, swinger lifestyle, regular participant in group sex, child molestation, beastiality, Bondage/sado masochistic sex)

Many straight people have a very perverse sexual life (within the boundaries of legality). Would any sane couple put any of their sexual perversions on their adoption application? No. They could rightly expect that it would be dismissed handily. Since gay couples can't keep their sexual preference off of the application, until homosexuality is no longer looked at as a sexual perversion, I doubt you will see widespread acceptance of gay adoption.

Edit: Speaking of sexual perversion and child care, you'll notice the government actually took over 400 children away from their real parents in the case of the Warren Jeffs polygamists. Forget adoption.

Some should, some shouldn't. Same goes for atheists, and people belonging to any race, including white. If there's a good reason a person can't raise a child, society shouldn't let them. But John and cbwm are right; the alternative is the foster system, not a line of straight people who really want a child, but there aren't enough to go around...!

And, to the other question: sure, sometimes people go too far in the name of naive equality. Standardized testing and mandatory sentencing are two examples that jump to mind.

That is why we have the Child Services department or something, Its their duty to determine if two couples or an individual is capable of properly rearing a young mind. But in this case, I haven't heard of any case that couples of the same sex were given the right to a child. But I think that it is possible. What ever gender actually can be a good father or mother depends on how one understands the responsibility of being a parent. There are couples, male and female, that do not succeed in parenthood, there are single parents, so I guess its ok to have gay or lesbian parents. I mean there are a lot of child who needs care.

Originally Posted by robertjordan

or do you think its perfectly ok for a gay couple to lovingly rear a child?

Is it just me, or does that just sound wrong? As far as who should and should not be a parent needs to be based on the people themselves, and not their partner's sex. A Tampa Bay Fl. Judge gave the custody of a young girl to her Father, who had formerly been in prison for murder, instead of the Mother who was in a Lesbian relationship. How is that for a statement on morality?

Originally Posted by Capt Quirk

A Tampa Bay Fl. Judge gave the custody of a young girl to her Father, who had formerly been in prison for murder, instead of the Mother who was in a Lesbian relationship. How is that for a statement on morality?

It isn't. The judge determined that, of the two birth parents, the father was more suited. I'd hate to see the file on the mother in this case. It would also be good to point out that sometimes, a husband or wife leaves his or her partner for another person of the same sex. Although that may play somewhat into how the state awards custody in the divorce, I doubt it has a serious impact. I imagine that in most cases where there are not other mitigating factors, the straight parent gone gay gets equal custody, and maybe even sole custody if circumstances apply to the other parent.

Adoption is a different animal. These are not the real parents of the adoptee. I also doubt the government sees it's foster care system as the blight it really is, another reason we don't want to make it our sole health care provider. Several child care professionals went on the record saying the children taken from the polygamists would be better off with their real parents who participate in a cult that promotes and coerces under age wedlock and pregnancy, than they would be in foster care. What does that tell you about the system.

For the past few years, I've been saying the system needs to be shut down and rebooted.From the top all the way down to the City level. Complete anarchy wouldn't be much better, but at least it would be more honest.

lets just end it now and stop having kids. That would solve a lot of problems.

lets just end it now and stop having kids. That would solve a lot of problems.

Not in our occidentalized world.
Think about your elderly age.

I don't know USA, but here, in Switzerland, it's the youth that pay for the elderly rents.
More exactly, it's the working peoples since they are 18 that gives around 7% of their income to a mutual func that is split between the elderly.

Why do you think the governmenents nearly everywhere (in Europe at least) struggle to reform system like that one.

And if there are no childrens, why continue to do anything then?
It would mean that in 30~40 years, the human kind would be extinct.
Why bother about pollution, nuclear wastes and global warning then?

Bring em on !
would I bee tempted to quote.

U.S. is the same way with Social Security, though I believe its only 5% of the first 100k earned by every wage earner. Agreeing with you, and connecting this thread to the many philosophy threads, children are our soul reason for existence, at least from an evolutionary standpoint.

Sexuality should only be a small part of the deciding factor of whether to allow someone to adopt a child. While I personally do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle and deal with the turmoil it causes in my family on a daily basis (my sister is 'married' to a woman), it has been stated before in this thread that there are plenty of hetrosexual people who chould not be allowed to adopt. There is an indepth screening process with any adoption and there should be. Should your sexuality play a role - yes. So should your employment status, salary range, mental stability, etc.

Here is a good article that runs through the implications of the California Supreme Court decision to overturn the Legislated ban on gay marriage. I only post it because it is a very closely related topic, and most of the hoopla is about the impact it would have on the rearing of children.

I thought this passage was particularly humorous:

the court deemed that gays could not be bared from what is "the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime."

As the decision was a divided one (4-3), I can only assume the 4 who put together that particular quote have either never been married, or fall into the less than 50% of people with non-bitter hate filled marriages that end in divorce .