Adoption by Same Sex Couples

[jon_hill987]

It seems the debate is raging once again (in the UK), Should same sex couples be allowed to adopt children?

link (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297107.stm)

Due to the equality act (coming in in April) gay couples will be able to adopt, but the catholic church (who run a lot of adoption agencies in the UK) want to be able to opt out.

Should they (or any other adoption agency for that mater) be allowed to choose for themselves as to who should be allowed to adopt?

I think that they should, though not for the same reasons as the Catholics. Children are nasty, how do you think children are going to respond to finding out that someone in their class has gay parents? their lives will be made a living hell. I'm not saying that it is right, I am just saying that that is what young children do. I am not anti gay, but I do think that for the child's well being it should no be allowed.

My second point is that currently some straight couples are turned away as they are deemed unsuitable parents, what if (and I am sure this is unlikely) a gay couple who are unsuitable parents (but not because they are gay, maybe one has a drinking problem) get turned down and then use the discrimination act to force the agency to let them adopt? That won't be good for anyone.

[Alice Shade]

Well...

I, obviously, think that yes, gay couples should be allowed to adopt.

If anything, they might be better-off parents, then straight couple.
Why? Basically, for gay people that`s about the only way to have a child. Therefore, they would be treating the opportunity with much more attention, then straight couple.

Now, I`m not saying, that every gay couple is better. Far from it.
BUT! The fact, that some of the gay couples are NOT fit parents, never stems just from them being gay.
In fact, once we discard the initial prejudice towards homosexuality, it becomes clear, that gay couples have pretty much same chances and causes of being turned down, as straight ones.


As for children being nasty...

That is only an issue in the society with strong prejudices towards homosexual lifestyle.
As an example - "You don`t have a dad, neener-neener!" could be easily countered - "Yea, but I got two mums! Beat that!", and would never escalate out of scale of normal children behavior. BUT, as soon as PARENTAL prejudice enters the scene, all civilties are thrown out of window. I mean, there`s not much of what could be responded to - "Dad said your moms are dirty dykes! I`m not playing with you anymore!"

[jon_hill987]

There is definitely a flip side to this coin. A lot of the reasons against it are just down to prejudice but there is also the issue as to whether the government is right to FORCE adoption agencies to place children with gay couples. Perhaps each agency should be allowed to make their own policy about this issue rather than all having to follow the rules set down by the government.

I agree with your point about gay couples possibly making better parents, I was never doubting their ability, just the other possible "side effects" for the children (no I don't think it will "turn them gay as well", which I have (sadly) heard used as argument against).

[Alice Shade]

Jon, the issue is extremely simple here.

Can you name a core difference in parenting/legal proceedings between straight and gay couples, which is not directly linked to prejudice?

I do not think, that adopting agencies can use "gay or not" as a factor in determining the viability of foster parents. All the criteria, that applies to straight couples, applies to gay couples just as well, and there is no need to add to prejudices by making a difference again.

[GeoffBoulton]

there is also the issue as to whether the government is right to FORCE adoption agencies to place children with gay couples

Nobody is forcing anyone to place children with gay couples. The issue is that potential parents should not be rejected simply because of their sexuality. ALL potential parents have to go through a screening process to assess their suitability as parents. This should be the criteria used for selection, not their sexuality.

I strongly object to the Catholic, or any other church, being given an opt-out. It is their bigotry that is the problem, not the law. Let's not forget that the bible teaches that slavery is OK for instance but I don't hear the church crying out for an excemption on labour laws for example.

It is time for the church to move forward with the rest of us instead of trying to hang onto outdated prejudices.

[Fallen Hero]

I see no reason why not, the only problem is prejudice. That is something that they will have to teach their kids to live with. I get it alot, I just ignore it most of the time.

[jon_hill987]

I do not think, that adopting agencies can use "gay or not" as a factor in determining the viability of foster parents.

No they should not. But what happens when a gay couple are turned down because they are genuinely unsuitable parents? with the new laws in place they are going to shout "homophobe" and "discrimination" at the top of their voice until they are given a child. The same thing has happened when all of the anti discrimination acts have come in, it doesn't make things fair, people just use them to their advantage.

I am not debating the right of gay people to adopt, I just don't think there should an anti discrimination law about it that can be used in that way.

[Alice Shade]

Well, this is what forms are for.

I don`t think you can claim that you was turned down because you`re gay, if records say you`re a crack addict, no?

If all the evaluations and survays are kept filed, it`s perfectly easy to show, that particular couple could not get parental rights, weather would it be straight or gay.

____________________________________________________________

BTW, antidiscrimination laws have NOTHING to do with it. They are inherently gimped.
For example, the law about afroamericans does NOT gives black-skinned people equal chance to be hired on some particular job, then similarly-skilled white people. Rather, it gives black-skinned people a hefty advantage.

All the "antidiscrimination" laws should be removed as a whole, they are outdated.

[jon_hill987]

BTW, antidiscrimination laws have NOTHING to do with it. They are inherently gimped.
For example, the law about afroamericans does NOT gives black-skinned people equal chance to be hired on some particular job, then similarly-skilled white people. Rather, it gives black-skinned people a hefty advantage.

All the "antidiscrimination" laws should be removed as a whole, they are outdated.

But that is what this new law is, an anti discrimination law, and I think it will be just as gimped[1] as the rest of them. They will probably set quotas for the number of same sex couples that any given agency has to give a child and if the quota is not meet they will take action against the agency for being discriminatory. so to avoid it the agencies will be turning down perfectly suitable straight couples in favour of same sex ones just to meet the quota. The trouble is they never think new legislation through before applying it.


[1]A good word! I was going to say something much ruder.

[Alice Shade]

Excuse me?

The more I look at USA law system, them more I think that USSR had much better one.

Quota in adoptions? WTF? What if no gay couples will apply for adoption, at all?
It`s ridiculous.
Giviing same rights does not means - giving advantages.

___________________________________________________________

However, just on the side note... It`s really quite impossible to work out something fair, as long as prejudices exist. As long as there is initial unfairness introduced by prejudice, there`s no way a law can fix that finely.

What is needed, is anti-prejudice law - persecuting people for prejudices.

[jon_hill987]

Excuse me?

The more I look at USA law system, them more I think that USSR had much better one.

Quota in adoptions? WTF? What if no gay couples will apply for adoption, at all?
It`s ridiculous.
Giviing same rights does not means - giving advantages.

I'm talking about the UK actually, and I'm not sure that they would do that (the quota thing). I expect it would be nearly as silly though.

[Alice Shade]

Hopefully, not.

There`s a bit of an issue with all the "no oppression towards minorities" thing. For some obscure reason, laws meant to help with that, do so by equally oppressing majority, rather then taking oppression off minorities.

So... Well, personally, I think that if someone won`t think about it, it will end up with oppressed majority revolting.

[Kokoba]

I strongly object to the Catholic, or any other church, being given an opt-out. It is their bigotry that is the problem, not the law. Let's not forget that the bible teaches that slavery is OK for instance but I don't hear the church crying out for an excemption on labour laws for example.

It is time for the church to move forward with the rest of us instead of trying to hang onto outdated prejudices.

While I am all for same sex adoption, I do disagree with this point (of course, coming at the issue as an American, and not a UK citizen). If churches want to have certain policies, like refusing to adopt to same sex couples, then the government really doesn't have any right to step in and force them to change those policies. They're uninformed and silly and downright bigoted, yes, but they should be allowed to have them. As society moves forward in terms of acceptance and tolerance, the church has no choice but to follow. It may lag behind, but ultimately it follows. You won't see any American churches refusing to acknowledge or perform interracial marriage ceremonies nowadays (or maybe there are still a few ones in the South here, I wouldn't know), but as recently as 30 years ago that was quite different.

[Alice Shade]

Kokoba, it would be quite true, if it was dealing only with conscious followers of church.

However, in the orphanage, there`s slightly different situation.

AFAIK, orphanage policies include, that a child can refuze or accept an adoption. But letting church not to allow gay couples adopt decides for children off the bat, without even consulting them.

Think about it. Adoption is a deal between child and parents. THEY are interested parties. And I fail to see, how a broker between them (orphanage) has any right to deny or grant such deal out of law boundaries.

___________________________________________________

However, the issue with orphanages is WAY deeper, then that. Like, for example, while I wholeheartedly agree, that it`s a very good idea to have orphanages, I find it outrageous, that they are used to indoctorinate children in certain religion.

In my personal opinion, religious indoctorination should be outlawed, and considered on the same level as hate crimes.

[jon_hill987]

You make a good point. maybe the law should come in, seen as the catholic church has said they will close their orphanages if it does.

[Alice Shade]

Typical for church.

"Behave!"
"NO! I`d rather make some bad things happen, if you won`t let me do like I want to!"

[Kokoba]

You do bring up a good point, Alice, in that in this case the church is interfering with a sort of "fundamental issue" when it refuses to allow gay couples to adopt--it's a bit different than not allowing gay marriage, since they're not doing anything to prevent the couples from seeing each other. I didn't consider that.

I dunno. In principle, I still don't like the government interfering with religious institutions all that much. Hurrrrrrm.

[Alice Shade]

Religious organisation should have NO dealings with children, in first place.

Any religion imposed on child ultimately gimps his/her mental development.

Religious choices should be made by consenting adults, not forced upon children.

[Kokoba]

Well, an orphanage can be Catholic-run but still not really churchy. Like my college is considered a Quaker school, but Quaker beliefs aren't at all taught in the curriculum, unless you count "being a filthy dirty left-wing hippie" as a belief =P

Or it could be extremely churchy. I don't know what the Catholic/British orphanages are like.

[Alice Shade]

Well, it`s really easy.

If they are not churchy, they have no place segregating gay from straight.

If they are churchy, they have no place to handle children.

Simple as that.

[AaronD]

That does just about sum it up.

[Iavor]

I think same sex couples should be aloud to adopt children, as it is one of the only ways in which they can have children, however I do not agree that same sex couples make better parents as some of you have said. Now we do not know the psychological affect of having "2 dads" or "2 mums"
Thinking about the children at school they could be badly bullied on the fact that their parents are gay. However many children are now better educated and will tend no to be against gay people. However I do happen to know a few people that are really against gay people and especially them having the right to bring children in to the world.
In my opinion a child needs both a mum and a dad, as role models, for example the relationship girls have with their father can help determine the types of relationship they have with other boys. In a perfect situation all children should have both a good father and a good mother. However there have been many cases in which fathers have been abusive and have miss treated their children, so in hat case it would be better if two women raised the children. I personally do not know any gay men however the stereotype does portray them as more sensitive which would be a good influence on young children
At the end of the day I think it is best that same sex couples can adopt children as the child will be better off living in a house rather then I a care home of children.