PDA

View Full Version : Is Homosexual Adoption Right? (ENDS 24/7/11)



Cosmic
03-07-2011, 04:57 PM
As society gradually moves closer towards tolerance towards homosexual couples, the issue of single-sex adoption has been brought to people's attention. I think that there are various issues that pertain to single-sex adoption. Firstly, can the child be brought up the same fashion as he or she would be under the care and guidance of heterosexual parents? Do you feel that a child needs to have clear gender role-models?

In terms of schooling and socialising with other children, I personally think that from my experience through school, it is likely that a child with 'two dads/mums' is likely to be bullied. Do you think the child could become a target for bullying? This then raises the question about whether it is morally right for a child to be raised in this manner. I am not sure how I would handle the news that my child/children are being victimised because of me, as I'm sure that any parent would agree with.

Please try to be as honest as possible here. I'm really looking forward to seeing what people think.

Tom
10-07-2011, 08:29 PM
If I'm perfectly honest. Whether you're gay straight or bi you should be able to do anything you want to WITH equality! Homosexual people can't help how they are as they're born their way. So why can't they adopt? Because this so called 'God' doesn't accept being homosexual? If he created everyone in the world he obviously created homosexual people. There's nothing wrong with 2 men bringing up a baby and society should accept that 2 caring men want to bring up a baby. In fact, most gay couples are more 'safer' for babies than some Heterosexual couples - so what's this about 'God' not allowing homosexual people? If I'm honest God's still a virgin so he can go away.

With what you said 'Can they be brought up in the same fashion as he or she would be under the care and guidance of heterosexual parents' - yes they can. Homosexual parents are just the same as heterosexual parents but just the same sex. We all think the same and we all act the same no matter what orientation we are. We are ALL humans at the end of the day.

Most people are worried about their children being bullied if they grow up with homosexual parents, but why? Children learn of their parents - if their parents aren't homophobic etc they won't pick it up and they will accept it. I blame their parents if I'm totally honest as if they didn't bring society up the way they have then we wouldn't have homophobic people etc. Then their children wouldn't learn it!

FlyingJesus
10-07-2011, 08:41 PM
Ok disregarding the I LOVE EQUALITY IT TOTALLY EXISTS SELLING GAY RIGHTS 3HC argument, there's literally no basis for not allowing gay adoption other than the possibility of the child being bullied - a possibility that exists for ALL victim personality children and is already increased by them being adopted. Harsh obv, but let's be realistic it is more likely. I don't think one can reasonably discount the benefits of a stable home life (assuming that the prospective fathers/mothers still have tough checks done before adoption) simply on the basis that the child's peers might pick on them, especially when it's clearly far more detrimental for said child to be stuck in a halfway house - or worse, an unloving home - while they wait for a couple with opposing sex organs to give them a chance.

The thing with bullying is that if a child is going to be bullied, they're gonna be bullied. Be it because they have 2 dads, a huge nose, a lingering odour of onions, a lisp, or even just because someone wants to have a go at them, it will happen and using that as an attempt at logically not allowing homosexual couples to adopt makes as much sense as not letting poor people breed because their children won't have fancy clothes and will get bullied for that.

RandomManJay
10-07-2011, 08:44 PM
Gender roles are established from more than your parents, and whether or not you have two mothers or fathers will not change how your roles are formed. Research in parenting has only ever supported the view that a "normal" child development requires a loving, caring and stable environment, which is not based upon whether or not there is a mother and father, one mother or one father, or is the parents are of the same-sex.

With regards to bullying: Children will always be bullied, and there will always be something to be bullied about, even if there isn't a genuine reason at all. The fact that a child having same-sex parents would only mean there is one extra thing that a child could be bullied about. It would be like a child bullying your child because you're in a wheelchair, or is overweight, or have blond hair. Yes it could cause problems when they're older when they begin to understand what the bullying was about, but society wont progress forward unless a minority which is supposed to be treated equally is actually treated equally. Also I highly doubt children wouldn't bully each other about the sexuality of their parents even if they are opposite-sex.

There's other things to consider also, like parents divorcing and one becoming actively gay, or surrogacy; basically any situation where the child is biologically related to a person who is gay. The situation is essentially the same, and we wouldn't consider taking a parent's child away from them simply because they're gay and are in a committed relationship.

Tom
10-07-2011, 08:46 PM
Ok disregarding the I LOVE EQUALITY IT TOTALLY EXISTS SELLING GAY RIGHTS 3HC argument, there's literally no basis for not allowing gay adoption other than the possibility of the child being bullied - a possibility that exists for ALL victim personality children and is already increased by them being adopted. Harsh obv, but let's be realistic it is more likely. I don't think one can reasonably discount the benefits of a stable home life (assuming that the prospective fathers/mothers still have tough checks done before adoption) simply on the basis that the child's peers might pick on them, especially when it's clearly far more detrimental for said child to be stuck in a halfway house - or worse, an unloving home - while they wait for a couple with opposing sex organs to give them a chance.

The thing with bullying is that if a child is going to be bullied, they're gonna be bullied. Be it because they have 2 dads, a huge nose, a lingering odour of onions, a lisp, or even just because someone wants to have a go at them, it will happen and using that as an attempt at logically not allowing homosexual couples to adopt makes as much sense as not letting poor people breed because their children won't have fancy clothes and will get bullied for that.

I agree with you on the fact that the child will probably be bullied, and the fact that it doesn't make a difference for what. It's just something that some big cocky kids can make fun of to make their reputation higher. Again, as I primarily mentioned, as did .Sarcastix. - kids learn off their parents and that's the way it will always be.

Mathew
10-07-2011, 08:48 PM
I don't think this is a debateable topic really. Society has changed in recent years and I think you'd be extremely unreasonable to suggest homosexual adoption isn't right... not to mention the fact that you'd be incredibly out of touch with current affairs and the world in general.

Tom
10-07-2011, 08:50 PM
That's true Mathew - there's limited things you can say on this subject and what you can actually argue over.

Inseriousity.
10-07-2011, 09:25 PM
Yes children with two dads are likely to be bullied but what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. They'll get through it like every other victim of bullying does in the end. As long as they're able to provide stability and love, I have no problem with same-sex parents.

Hollie
10-07-2011, 10:00 PM
It's natural to want to have kids whether your gay or straight, so of course it's right. As long as you can provide a stable upbringing, but that goes for every parents tbh, not just homosexual parents.

Technologic
10-07-2011, 10:12 PM
I do want kids but I really don't know where to stand on the subject, i was bullied horrendously during junior school and i wouldn't want to put a child through that if other kids found out they had gay parents.... then again if it's the right environment then i feel that any couple, gay or straight, can raise a child properly in a good home. I'll probably foster at first before full on adoption

dbgtz
10-07-2011, 10:13 PM
After watching the waterloo road episode (again) where Sam gets fostered by that gay teacher, it clearly demonstrates (obviously scripted but still) that it doesn't matter and that how one treats another is what affects a person. It should not be based on their gender, but on how their personalities match. But I guess that's hard to do, kind of like basing things off of maturity rather than age.

Tom
10-07-2011, 10:36 PM
I do want kids but I really don't know where to stand on the subject, i was bullied horrendously during junior school and i wouldn't want to put a child through that if other kids found out they had gay parents.... then again if it's the right environment then i feel that any couple, gay or straight, can raise a child properly in a good home. I'll probably foster at first before full on adoption

I also want a kid, but I was scared of if it would get bullied in school. But you just shouldn't think of the negative. If he/she does get bullied, you're always there to sort it out in the end. If anything happens at all to the child, there is always a caring family behind him/her - and that's the main thing. That's all that matters in life is if you're well cared for!

ifuseekamy
10-07-2011, 10:41 PM
People would've once thought this about non-white parents, single parents and unmarried parents. I don't recall anyone ever being bullied because of their parents anyway, it's kind of a no go zone.

Tom
10-07-2011, 10:43 PM
People would've once thought this about non-white parents, single parents and unmarried parents. I don't recall anyone ever being bullied because of their parents anyway, it's kind of a no go zone.

If you're homophobic, it would rub off onto your child - then if that child finds out about your parent(s) being homosexual you'd get bullied. It's just what kids do to be 'cool' and show they are the "Alpha" person

FlyingJesus
10-07-2011, 11:02 PM
If you're homophobic, it would rub off onto your child - then if that child finds out about your parent(s) being homosexual you'd get bullied. It's just what kids do to be 'cool' and show they are the "Alpha" person

Yeah but that happens anyway. BACK IN MY DAY we told everyone that some kid had two dads and he got bullied for it for ages but it was never true and everyone knew that. Bullies will bully and victims will be victimised, that's how society goes

Tom
10-07-2011, 11:20 PM
Yeah but that happens anyway. BACK IN MY DAY we told everyone that some kid had two dads and he got bullied for it for ages but it was never true and everyone knew that. Bullies will bully and victims will be victimised, that's how society goes

Yes, I see where you're coming from. But society IS changing and it's up to young people on what happens. If they continue with old lifestyle nothing's going to change.

Muct
10-07-2011, 11:22 PM
No. Some people kill themselves because of bullying, or self-harm, if not any of them they're most probably gonna be badly scarred in their adult life, purely because of this reason I'd disagree with homosexuals adopting children. +don't be like 'THEYRE GONNA BE BULLIED SOMETIME IN THEIR LIFE PROBS ANYWAY!!!' because being bullied because of your family enviroment and upbringing is obviously going to scar alot worse than being bullied for whatever - a monobrow, bad hair or whatever, which you can fix.
Just saying lol, I mean, if a kid goes into school and everyone finds out theyre mums/dads are gay, obviously people are gonna be calling him/her a ******/lesbian/gay because of their parents, that's just the way some people are at school nowadays.

Tom
11-07-2011, 12:07 AM
No. Some people kill themselves because of bullying, or self-harm, if not any of them they're most probably gonna be badly scarred in their adult life, purely because of this reason I'd disagree with homosexuals adopting children. +don't be like 'THEYRE GONNA BE BULLIED SOMETIME IN THEIR LIFE PROBS ANYWAY!!!' because being bullied because of your family enviroment and upbringing is obviously going to scar alot worse than being bullied for whatever - a monobrow, bad hair or whatever, which you can fix.
Just saying lol, I mean, if a kid goes into school and everyone finds out theyre mums/dads are gay, obviously people are gonna be calling him/her a ******/lesbian/gay because of their parents, that's just the way some people are at school nowadays.

Yeah, I see what you mean. But suicide over bullying is decreasing bit by bit with all the support schools are getting. Unfortunately it's not enough I know that, but as I've said a good few times now, if younger children behaved differently than what some adults do, society would be different. There's nothing wrong with raising a baby with 2 men or women. If it was a mother and a friend raising a child, no-one sticks their nose up at that? If it was 2 girls doing it and they're in a relationship what's the difference?

GirlNextDoor15
11-07-2011, 03:07 AM
I don't think this is a debateable topic really. Society has changed in recent years and I think you'd be extremely unreasonable to suggest homosexual adoption isn't right... not to mention the fact that you'd be incredibly out of touch with current affairs and the world in general.

I agree with you, Mathew!
There's not much for us to debate on here. It depends on how the child is brought up and where the child lives.

-:Undertaker:-
11-07-2011, 05:56 AM
I don't think this is a debateable topic really. Society has changed in recent years and I think you'd be extremely unreasonable to suggest homosexual adoption isn't right... not to mention the fact that you'd be incredibly out of touch with current affairs and the world in general.

Well its interesting you'd say that, I believe everytime gay marriage for example has been put to a public vote (even in 'liberal' states in the United States such as California) it's been rejected by the people. I very much doubt that gay adoption would be voted through here in Britain, let alone the liberal states in the United States. My own personal view is that i'm unsure - to me it changes (my libertarian views) when it involves others such as with abortion because libertarianism is individual freedom and not the freedom to decide for others/harm others. The traditional family has been damaged to such an extent and being conservative I loathe it and i'm not sure whether or not gay adoption does anything else but weaken it as the prospect of gay marriage does.

I'd put moral issues like this up for a referendum as they involve others but i'd probably vote no as i'm simply not comfortable with it. In terms of gay marriage which is another similar issue, i'd simply get government out of marriage and make it a private contract between two individuals and people can call it what they want - but still in my own eyes i'd only ever view hetrosexual marriages held in religious places as 'marriage' - but that same solution can't be said with gay adoption. So;

Gay adoption; personally against, however would put to a referendum as the liberty vs democracy issue is blurred.
Gay marriage; would get the government out of marriage (so de facto legalise), but would only *personally* view hetrosexual marriages as 'marriage'.

FunXiaomilitary
11-07-2011, 06:08 AM
No. Some people kill themselves because of bullying, or self-harm, if not any of them they're most probably gonna be badly scarred in their adult life, purely because of this reason I'd disagree with homosexuals adopting children. +don't be like 'THEYRE GONNA BE BULLIED SOMETIME IN THEIR LIFE PROBS ANYWAY!!!' because being bullied because of your family enviroment and upbringing is obviously going to scar alot worse than being bullied for whatever - a monobrow, bad hair or whatever, which you can fix.
Just saying lol, I mean, if a kid goes into school and everyone finds out theyre mums/dads are gay, obviously people are gonna be calling him/her a ******/lesbian/gay because of their parents, that's just the way some people are at school nowadays.
I agree with this cause its like awarkard ... And students in school nowadays like to make fun of people ...

Tom
11-07-2011, 07:04 AM
Well its interesting you'd say that, I believe everytime gay marriage for example has been put to a public vote (even in 'liberal' states in the United States such as California) it's been rejected by the people. I very much doubt that gay adoption would be voted through here in Britain, let alone the liberal states in the United States. My own personal view is that i'm unsure - to me it changes (my libertarian views) when it involves others such as with abortion because libertarianism is individual freedom and not the freedom to decide for others/harm others. The traditional family has been damaged to such an extent and being conservative I loathe it and i'm not sure whether or not gay adoption does anything else but weaken it as the prospect of gay marriage does.

I'd put moral issues like this up for a referendum as they involve others but i'd probably vote no as i'm simply not comfortable with it. In terms of gay marriage which is another similar issue, i'd simply get government out of marriage and make it a private contract between two individuals and people can call it what they want - but still in my own eyes i'd only ever view hetrosexual marriages held in religious places as 'marriage' - but that same solution can't be said with gay adoption. So;

Gay adoption; personally against, however would put to a referendum as the liberty vs democracy issue is blurred.
Gay marriage; would get the government out of marriage (so de facto legalise), but would only *personally* view hetrosexual marriages as 'marriage'.


I agree with this cause its like awarkard ... And students in school nowadays like to make fun of people ...

You said you believe in freedom - don't homosexual people deserve freedom? We're not different people from different worlds. So why can't we have equal rights? If a homosexual person wants a child he should be able to get it, as he would feel love towards it and not abuse it, like some parents do to their children.

Bringing religion into this is a different matter. Again, as I've said before now, if "God" created the world and everyone in it, he created homosexual people? Obviously you will stand by your opinions and I accept that, but you just have to realise that homosexual people ARE human beings and DO deserve equal rights and even a chance at bringing up a family as it may even be a long term goal? But they can't achieve it because they're gay?

-:Undertaker:-
11-07-2011, 07:23 AM
You said you believe in freedom - don't homosexual people deserve freedom? We're not different people from different worlds. So why can't we have equal rights? If a homosexual person wants a child he should be able to get it, as he would feel love towards it and not abuse it, like some parents do to their children.

Well hang on a minute, i've just said that although gay marriage for instance may be against my taste and I do not consider it equal to normal marriage that I would not ban it, rather that I would simply get government out of marriage so that government did not define marriage. Therefore under that system, you could in theory be married to a table, an aunt or your grandad and call it marriage - but obviously in my eyes and the eyes of others we wouldn't consider it marriage just as many do not consider gay marriage equal to hetrosexual marriage (as I stated, even liberal states have knocked it back everytime its been put to a public vote).

My issue with the gay adoption is simple, that although I want to maximize freedom and liberty, liberty is not an end all when it directly affects another human being which I believe gay adoption does so just as abortion does. The same applies to murder, whilst i'm a libertarian I know that we need basic rules on what can/cannot affect others directly (usually physically). I'm not sure whether I like the general idea of it which I am not all comfortable with but then on the other hand I can see the slight liberty argument to it - hence why I would rather something like this go to a public referendum rather than gay marriage which should simply have government taken out of marriage.

I'm not comfortable with it and thats more or less it, the traditional family in my view is by far the best and most superior form of relationship for children to grow up around and I think more support should be placed upon that rather than the idea of gay adoption. The point with marriage is that although I disapprove I can allow it to happen without worrying that it would affect others directly, with gay adoption or abortion on the other hand that same principle cannot be applied which is why I find myself at a crossroads with it.


Bringing religion into this is a different matter. Again, as I've said before now, if "God" created the world and everyone in it, he created homosexual people? Obviously you will stand by your opinions and I accept that, but you just have to realise that homosexual people ARE human beings and DO deserve equal rights and even a chance at bringing up a family as it may even be a long term goal? But they can't achieve it because they're gay?

I'm not sure whether this is aimed at me or not or whether its a general point, but either way I haven't myself brought religion into this debate. But what i've always asked myself on this 'equal rights' agenda, is why doesn't this apply to incest couples for instance from your side of the argument? you probably find it revolting as others find homosexuality revolting yet why can't a incest couple marry and adopt but a homosexual couple can in the name of equal rights? personally as I said earlier, i'd make marriage a remit outside of government control thus allowing marriegs which are incest, gay or anything else - but my issue with adoption is that is directly affects the children involved as is with abortion.

And from my point of view, i'm not sure its best for the child or something i'm comfortable with.

FunXiaomilitary
11-07-2011, 07:25 AM
Its not good for a child and I am not bais or something

Inseriousity.
11-07-2011, 10:02 AM
How does gay marriage/adoption ruin the 'traditional family unit'. If a gay man's in the closet cos society says he needs to have a family, needs to settle down and have kids... how is that healthy for anyone in that family unit. Perhaps the makeup/structure of the traditional family unit has changed but as long as the values of a family unit (love, support, stability) remains then it doesn't matter if it's single-parent, same-sex parent etc.

Muct
11-07-2011, 02:00 PM
You said you believe in freedom - don't homosexual people deserve freedom?

Yes, but when it gets to the point that their adoptive children get bullied in school so much that they could kill themself/self-harm, it has to be cut down a little. By the way, I'm not homophobic, I'm bi lol.

Tom
11-07-2011, 02:44 PM
Yes, but when it gets to the point that their adoptive children get bullied in school so much that they could kill themself/self-harm, it has to be cut down a little. By the way, I'm not homophobic, I'm bi lol.

Yes, I see where you're coming from. But that's why they need parents - someone they can tell their problems too. If the parents care they'd do something about it and make sure it stops! It's what I would do!



How does gay marriage/adoption ruin the 'traditional family unit'. If a gay man's in the closet cos society says he needs to have a family, needs to settle down and have kids... how is that healthy for anyone in that family unit. Perhaps the makeup/structure of the traditional family unit has changed but as long as the values of a family unit (love, support, stability) remains then it doesn't matter if it's single-parent, same-sex parent etc.

I totally agree with this. As long as the child is loved, supported and IS in a stable father-son relationship it's fine. The child wouldn't object as long as he's happy and if I'm honest, being with a more caring home is better than being in a "mistake" home, where you weren't meant to be born and you're treated like dirt if that makes sense. At least if they adopted the baby IS wanted.

FlyingJesus
11-07-2011, 03:03 PM
My issue with the gay adoption is simple, that although I want to maximize freedom and liberty, liberty is not an end all when it directly affects another human being which I believe gay adoption does so just as abortion does.

Suggesting that gay adoption can be argued against on the basis of liberty suggests that all conception ought to be banned in case the resulting life is not 100% perfect. There's nothing proven to say that two men or two women cannot effectively bring up a child, and to attempt to police influence on a child's upbringing would, I'm sure you'd agree, be a far greater attack on liberty than the possibility of them suffering socially at school - something which is a result of other peoples' actions outside the family, and only indirectly because of the situation at home. Do you also believe that single persons should not be allowed to adopt or give birth? Should disabled folk and those without the financial means to give a child the best life have forced hysterectomies and vasectomies?


I'm not comfortable with it and thats more or less it, the traditional family in my view is by far the best and most superior form of relationship for children to grow up around and I think more support should be placed upon that rather than the idea of gay adoption.

Again, should only 100% healthy heterosexual couples be allowed children? I believe that support ought to be placed on family life, but not necessarily the typical 2.4 children model as it simply isn't always the best way for a family to run. Divorce happens, and that can often be far better for the family than attempting to keep a loveless couple together and give the children a warped view of how families work. If it's lack of an opposing gender influence that worries you, consider that humans are generally somewhat social creatures and it's extremely rare for a child to grow up without a lot of input from family friends, and regardless of that "gender" a whole is in a species as advanced as ours something that's really only necessary as a sexual thing rather than social or mental.

Richie
11-07-2011, 03:11 PM
I'm just going to be blunt, no it isn't right.

Children deserve to have both a female and a male role model in their life, preferably their parents. I'm not homophobic, if people want to pick those flowers or tickle them pickles let them.. I just don't think it should involve children unless it's their own child from a past relationship then it's 100% up to them if they want to bring a child up like that.

FlyingJesus
11-07-2011, 03:17 PM
I'm just going to be blunt, no it isn't right.

Children deserve to have both a female and a male role model in their life, preferably their parents. I'm not homophobic, if people want to pick those flowers or tickle them pickles let them.. I just don't think it should involve children unless it's their own child from a past relationship then it's 100% up to them if they want to bring a child up like that.


If it's lack of an opposing gender influence that worries you, consider that humans are generally somewhat social creatures and it's extremely rare for a child to grow up without a lot of input from family friends, and regardless of that "gender" a whole is in a species as advanced as ours something that's really only necessary as a sexual thing rather than social or mental.

Hi there

Richie
11-07-2011, 03:20 PM
Hi there

It's not the same though. I was brought up a good part of my life without a father being around all the time and it wasn't a good experience. Although I had uncles, friends and other male role models it isn't the same as a father.

Tom
11-07-2011, 03:24 PM
I'm just going to be blunt, no it isn't right.

Children deserve to have both a female and a male role model in their life, preferably their parents. I'm not homophobic, if people want to pick those flowers or tickle them pickles let them.. I just don't think it should involve children unless it's their own child from a past relationship then it's 100% up to them if they want to bring a child up like that.

Wait, so - if it's their child from a past relationship, but if it's adopting one it's not okay? I don't see how that works? :S

You could be brought up by 2 women and still lead a happy life, and it's the same with 2 males

Richie
11-07-2011, 03:33 PM
Wait, so - if it's their child from a past relationship, but if it's adopting one it's not okay? I don't see how that works? :S

You could be brought up by 2 women and still lead a happy life, and it's the same with 2 males

I'm not saying it does work :S I'm just saying it's their child they can do what they want, you can hardly take a child away from its mother because she decides to turn to carpet.

P.s
My point is about gay people in general not just men.

Tom
11-07-2011, 03:41 PM
I'm not saying it does work :S I'm just saying it's their child they can do what they want, you can hardly take a child away from its mother because she decides to turn to carpet.

P.s
My point is about gay people in general not just men.

But if the mother is willing to give up the baby for adoption anyway, they obviously don't care. If a gay couple want to adopt you then know the baby is going to be looked after, isn't that what you would want? The baby to be looked after and live a happy life?

-:Undertaker:-
11-07-2011, 03:42 PM
It's not the same though. I was brought up a good part of my life without a father being around all the time and it wasn't a good experience. Although I had uncles, friends and other male role models it isn't the same as a father.

I agree, a family friend cannot replace the role of the traditional family with a mother and father.

I'll reply to Tom's post in more detail later/tommorow.

Richie
11-07-2011, 03:49 PM
But if the mother is willing to give up the baby for adoption anyway, they obviously don't care. If a gay couple want to adopt you then know the baby is going to be looked after, isn't that what you would want? The baby to be looked after and live a happy life?

I'm not going to argue with you, if you don't like my opinion ignore it. A child deserves both a female and male role model in their life. I don't agree with gay people adopting children, loving people or not.

How dare you say a mother doesn't care if they put their child up for adoption, some people just aren't in the right state of mind and could possibly be living in a bad environment, so in the childs best interest they try find them a loving home. To answer your question, no, I'd prefer a child to be adopted by a couple both male and female.

Technologic
11-07-2011, 03:53 PM
I'm not going to argue with you, if you don't like my opinion ignore it. A child deserves both a female and male role model in their life. I don't agree with gay people adopting children, loving people or not.

How dare you say a mother doesn't care if they put their child up for adoption, some people just aren't in the right state of mind and could possibly be living in a bad environment, so in the childs best interest they try find them a loving home. To answer your question, no, I'd prefer a child to be adopted by a couple both male and female.

My mum was adopted by three sisters and brought up by them and she turned out alright. Explain that away.

Tom
11-07-2011, 03:56 PM
I'm not going to argue with you, if you don't like my opinion ignore it. A child deserves both a female and male role model in their life. I don't agree with gay people adopting children, loving people or not.

How dare you say a mother doesn't care if they put their child up for adoption, some people just aren't in the right state of mind and could possibly be living in a bad environment, so in the childs best interest they try find them a loving home. To answer your question, no, I'd prefer a child to be adopted by a couple both male and female.

I didn't mean it as though a mother doesn't care, althought some don't - and of course I respect your opinion. It's just the fact that homosexual people are being treated so much differently, yet they are so alike. Why's it so wrong that they want to be normal and want to have a child, but can't because they like the same sex? It's not their fault!

Richie
11-07-2011, 03:58 PM
My mum was adopted by three sisters and brought up by them and she turned out alright. Explain that away.

I never said anyone would be messed up lol everyone is different, I'm not sure if you discussed it with your mum but she could feel a sense of loss for not having a male role model growing up?

Technologic
11-07-2011, 04:01 PM
I never said anyone would be messed up lol everyone is different, I'm not sure if you discussed it with your mum but she could feel a sense of loss for not having a male role model growing up?

I have discussed it many times with her and she feels she had no "sense of loss" whatsoever.

Richie
11-07-2011, 04:01 PM
I didn't mean it as though a mother doesn't care, althought some don't - and of course I respect your opinion. It's just the fact that homosexual people are being treated so much differently, yet they are so alike. Why's it so wrong that they want to be normal and want to have a child, but can't because they like the same sex? It's not their fault!

News flash: Men don't have vaginas

Na but seriously, one thing I hate about this thread is people pull out the homophobic card. The only problem I have with gay people raising children and I hope this is the last time I have to say it, children need both role models - My opinion.

---------- Post added 11-07-2011 at 05:03 PM ----------


I have discussed it many times with her and she feels she had no "sense of loss" whatsoever.

Well that's fair enough but as I said that is one person out of millions, people have different emotions. I know a lot of people who have gay parents and just say they're happy both their parents are male / female because they don't want to hurt their feelings. I'm sure gay people would do a great job raising children, I'm not doubting that.

Technologic
11-07-2011, 04:04 PM
News flash: Men don't have vaginas

Na but seriously, one thing I hate about this thread is people pull out the homophobic card. The only problem I have with gay people raising children and I hope this is the last time I have to say it, children need both role models - My opinion.

I can totally see where you're coming from but the way I view it is a home is a home, adoption rates have crashed since the financial crisis so any home is better than being tossed back and forth between temporary homes during your childhood

Tom
11-07-2011, 04:08 PM
I can totally see where you're coming from but the way I view it is a home is a home, adoption rates have crashed since the financial crisis so any home is better than being tossed back and forth between temporary homes during your childhood

I agree with this


News flash: Men don't have vaginas

Na but seriously, one thing I hate about this thread is people pull out the homophobic card. The only problem I have with gay people raising children and I hope this is the last time I have to say it, children need both role models - My opinion.

---------- Post added 11-07-2011 at 05:03 PM ----------



Well that's fair enough but as I said that is one person out of millions, people have different emotions. I know a lot of people who have gay parents and just say they're happy both their parents are male / female because they don't want to hurt their feelings. I'm sure gay people would do a great job raising children, I'm not doubting that.

Obviously I'm not dis-respecting your views or anything and if I'm honest this thread could actually, maybe, cause some arguments. I know it's your opinion and I'm glad you have an opinion on this - but I still think it's unfair how, because we want to raise a child, we can't because we're gay. We can't change it? I know what you're saying about they may need both role models, but at the end of the day, a home is a home like Technologic said. As long as you're brought up and happy it's okay? There's plenty of other females in the world to look up too.

ifuseekamy
11-07-2011, 04:58 PM
If a traditional nuclear family is so great then they wouldn't be producing homosexual children :S

Tom
11-07-2011, 06:11 PM
If a traditional nuclear family is so great then they wouldn't be producing homosexual children :S

Nice comment....

If a nuclear family is so "great" - doesn't mean they won't produce a homosexual baby :S

GommeInc
12-07-2011, 01:20 AM
Personally, if the parents are in a committed relationship and are committed to looking after a child, I have nothing wrong with it. But, I can see problems with it like FlyingJesus mentioned above - the child will be bullied -especially when you consider our education system and the way children act these days would give them a field day in the name calling department, especially when you get this air of "unnaturality" about it - the two same sex parents couldn't of dropped that child and naturally the majority of children in a classroom would come from a mother and father, in some respect - it's just how children understand things, and grow up.

It's a shame, because the couples could make excellent adoptive parents, like any adoptive parents, but there's no support for it especially when young children will not understand and there won't be much disciplinary action. Teachers can't project views that may confuse children and the parents of these children may not be comfortable. It's life :P

Areva
12-07-2011, 04:39 AM
I personally feel as a Gay guy that no one can can play a role of a Mother; therefore I do believe in heterosexual relationships preferred.

I believe anyone can raise kids, providing they are educated and in a stable environment, If its a choice that a child lives in care or with two loving women or men. I think that the better option than a life in care.

I guess anyone who adopts gets a rep in my book, straight, lesbian & transexual. If you adopt and give a stable environment and change a child life for the good, your cool in my book.

Although, I don't think anyone can take a role of a Mother figure, Dad's & Mom's are very very different.

FlyingJesus
12-07-2011, 02:16 PM
But, I can see problems with it like FlyingJesus mentioned above - the child will be bullied

I was actually saying that bullying will happen regardless of how many mums and dads a child has, because there's always something to divide us. Humans aren't all equal and we're pretty good at picking up on differences and using them against each other. My point about it being a source of ammo was that it would be used as an excuse to bully that child, but not the underlying reason, and is therefore only as directly damaging as having a child with glasses or a lisp. Bullies bully, victims are victimised. If there's nothing actually wrong with the victim (other than having a victim personality) then the bully will make something up anyway, so you're not saving kids from bullying by ensuring that they have a mother and father


Although, I don't think anyone can take a role of a Mother figure, Dad's & Mom's are very very different.

Gender roles are becoming increasingly blurred as we go on, and even regardless of that it's very much possible for a man to have mothering instincts just as it's possible for females to have no such instinct whatsoever

Rectitudinous
12-07-2011, 02:55 PM
Sometimes a gay couple can adopt a child and give them a life they never had, the love they never had from the heterosexual couple that gave birth to them. Which is also the reason why the child is being adopted. It should be allowed, because as it is there are so many troubled teens, and most of it's because one of the parents weren't there from birth, or because none of them were there at all.
I had this exact discussion in my health class. :P

Tom
12-07-2011, 03:54 PM
I personally feel as a Gay guy that no one can can play a role of a Mother; therefore I do believe in heterosexual relationships preferred.

I believe anyone can raise kids, providing they are educated and in a stable environment, If its a choice that a child lives in care or with two loving women or men. I think that the better option than a life in care.

I guess anyone who adopts gets a rep in my book, straight, lesbian & transexual. If you adopt and give a stable environment and change a child life for the good, your cool in my book.

Although, I don't think anyone can take a role of a Mother figure, Dad's & Mom's are very very different.

It's not the fact of playing the role of the Mother. If you love the child and care for the child, then you're just like a mother - I've stated a lot as long as the child is having a good life - no-one should be worried!

GommeInc
12-07-2011, 05:18 PM
I was actually saying that bullying will happen regardless of how many mums and dads a child has, because there's always something to divide us. Humans aren't all equal and we're pretty good at picking up on differences and using them against each other. My point about it being a source of ammo was that it would be used as an excuse to bully that child, but not the underlying reason, and is therefore only as directly damaging as having a child with glasses or a lisp. Bullies bully, victims are victimised. If there's nothing actually wrong with the victim (other than having a victim personality) then the bully will make something up anyway, so you're not saving kids from bullying by ensuring that they have a mother and father
I can see it being an excuse to bully a child. Like you said - it would be ammo. It won't necessarily be the reason to bully that child, but once bullies know of this (parents evenings or any details about the parents) then they will go crazy with the amount of ammo they're given. The type of bullies you get too varies - you get the idiotic ones that act like parrots repeating and feeding off the same material without actually knowing what they're doing, and then you get the ones with an opinion who understand what they're saying, the ones that may feel a "normal" "natural", nuclear family is best and that you must be weird to have two daddies or two mummies.

iJess
12-07-2011, 05:22 PM
Of course it's right. If they want to adopt a child, then they have the rights and the free will to do so.

FlyingJesus
12-07-2011, 05:24 PM
I don't disagree, but I can't see that as being a reason we ought to outlaw homosexual adoption (for those who don't know, it is legal in the UK) especially when there are so many other things that bullies pick up on. I go back to the analogies post of mine from yesterday - should disabled people and singles be made to not have children in case the differences in home life are used against them by kids at school?

Tom
12-07-2011, 05:49 PM
I don't disagree, but I can't see that as being a reason we ought to outlaw homosexual adoption (for those who don't know, it is legal in the UK) especially when there are so many other things that bullies pick up on. I go back to the analogies post of mine from yesterday - should disabled people and singles be made to not have children in case the differences in home life are used against them by kids at school?

As you're saying here - everyone DOES have the right to have a child and raise a family.

As Lady Gaga said - "No Matter Gay Straight or Bi, Lesbian Transgender Life" - you should be able to adopt. kfullstop ;)

GommeInc
12-07-2011, 06:17 PM
I don't disagree, but I can't see that as being a reason we ought to outlaw homosexual adoption (for those who don't know, it is legal in the UK) especially when there are so many other things that bullies pick up on. I go back to the analogies post of mine from yesterday - should disabled people and singles be made to not have children in case the differences in home life are used against them by kids at school?
Oh I agree that homosexuals should adopt as they're perfectly capable of being good parents and providing safe and loving homes for children. I just stated that I can see them being targeted, perhaps more so than some other children in a class, as children won't understand how two same sex people can be parents when many children will have a mother and father.

Tom
12-07-2011, 06:22 PM
Oh I agree that homosexuals should adopt as they're perfectly capable of being good parents and providing safe and loving homes for children. I just stated that I can see them being targeted, perhaps more so than some other children in a class, as children won't understand how two same sex people can be parents when many children will have a mother and father.

If you think about it though - we should blame the parents of their kid. They learn of adults, no wonder society is going down when something that is deemed 'abnormal' isn't accepted. The children learn from their parents saying that things like this is wrong, probably anyway.

Hollie
12-07-2011, 06:33 PM
It's good if a child grows up with two parents of the same sex cause they will grow up learning to accept people for who they are and not to be a homophobe or anything

GommeInc
12-07-2011, 08:59 PM
If you think about it though - we should blame the parents of their kid. They learn of adults, no wonder society is going down when something that is deemed 'abnormal' isn't accepted. The children learn from their parents saying that things like this is wrong, probably anyway.
There's nothing you can really do. If you tell a parent how to raise their children then you get in trouble. The only other people to "teach" children are the teachers, and they cannot get too involved. Not in the way that could counter-act what a parent has been teaching their children at least, as you would no doubt get a snooty parent telling a school that what they're doing wrong. However, saying that, a teacher could teach the children about "equality" in the hopes it gets back to the parents. There's nothing wrong with it afterall :P

Tom
12-07-2011, 09:43 PM
There's nothing you can really do. If you tell a parent how to raise their children then you get in trouble. The only other people to "teach" children are the teachers, and they cannot get too involved. Not in the way that could counter-act what a parent has been teaching their children at least, as you would no doubt get a snooty parent telling a school that what they're doing wrong. However, saying that, a teacher could teach the children about "equality" in the hopes it gets back to the parents. There's nothing wrong with it afterall :P

Yeah I know where you're coming from - but when they grow up it's up to them on what they accept! This is moving away a bit now, but the fact that when children grow older (the small ones now) it's up to them to change society for what it is today. That's why parent's need to realize they're not helping the situation. When most children 'now-a-days' grow up they believe that everyone needs an equal chance and that everyone should get it, so that's why society's changing. So now, to link in with that, homosexual people should be allowed to raise children! :)

Jahova
13-07-2011, 09:17 AM
Although homosexuals should be treated equally in today's society, I feel that it wouldn't benefit the child completely (imagine the bullying) so no.

Just picture this;
"Want to come over my house"
'sure' *goes to house*
""Hi there, hi there""
'who are they?'
"my stepdads"
'stepdads? WTF?????'
*tells everyone in school*

Oh dear.

buttons
13-07-2011, 09:35 AM
it's very highly unlikely that a child will get bullied all of their life for having two mums (remember it works both ways, I only see people saying dads) or two dads. the only way they would is if they had other aspects of them to bully about such as being a geek or something, take the nicest, friendliest person in the world who has two same sex parents and they will probably get the few insults here and there, same with a popular, attractive person whereas you take a person already likely to be a bully victim, then you can use the parents as another reason to bully. I do know people who have the same sex parents and while they are not exempt from insults, they are not treated half as bad as some of you make out and if you have witnessed that before then is that not a problem with society itself rather than the homosexual parents? I'm very much for homosexual adoption, children are happier with any form of closeness and caregiving be it with two males or even just older siblings than to have to go through various different carers. I do agree that a mother and father would be a more suitable choice but not always the best, like it's been said two caring fathers or two caring mothers are far better than an abusive father or emotionless mother. Adoption is a good thing providing theyre up to the jobs so I really have no problem with gay adoption at all..

Tom
14-07-2011, 06:43 AM
it's very highly unlikely that a child will get bullied all of their life for having two mums (remember it works both ways, I only see people saying dads) or two dads. the only way they would is if they had other aspects of them to bully about such as being a geek or something, take the nicest, friendliest person in the world who has two same sex parents and they will probably get the few insults here and there, same with a popular, attractive person whereas you take a person already likely to be a bully victim, then you can use the parents as another reason to bully. I do know people who have the same sex parents and while they are not exempt from insults, they are not treated half as bad as some of you make out and if you have witnessed that before then is that not a problem with society itself rather than the homosexual parents? I'm very much for homosexual adoption, children are happier with any form of closeness and caregiving be it with two males or even just older siblings than to have to go through various different carers. I do agree that a mother and father would be a more suitable choice but not always the best, like it's been said two caring fathers or two caring mothers are far better than an abusive father or emotionless mother. Adoption is a good thing providing theyre up to the jobs so I really have no problem with gay adoption at all..

This is the point most people have been trying to put across. The majority of people say two men because mainly all boys have posted and find it easier to relate to them? Obviously with you having first hand experience it makes people more knowledgeable as to what actually goes on.

As most of the posts have stated they may get bullied, but that's why you need 2 mothers or 2 fathers, or even 1 of each. To be there to care for you and be there to help you with your problems and try and help you to stop getting bullied. If the bullying then doesn't stop and the teachers don't do anything then do something about it themselves then they'd do something themselves, that my friends is the point of having 'parents' - as long as they're caring parents and they love you, would you as a child be happy? Even over some stupid little kids bullying you because they don't get the same love as you do? Personally, I believe you would be happy and that even with the same sex parents you'd be happy because you are being CARED for (note how many times I've mentioned being 'cared for')

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2011, 09:01 AM
Suggesting that gay adoption can be argued against on the basis of liberty suggests that all conception ought to be banned in case the resulting life is not 100% perfect.

Thats not possible however, but with gay adoption we are talking about the ability of the state/Churches to make a choice on what is best for the child of which I do not believe gay adoption is the best outcome for a child.


There's nothing proven to say that two men or two women cannot effectively bring up a child, and to attempt to police influence on a child's upbringing would, I'm sure you'd agree, be a far greater attack on liberty than the possibility of them suffering socially at school - something which is a result of other peoples' actions outside the family, and only indirectly because of the situation at home.

However, thats the case with natural families. The problem with gay adoption or any adoption is that the children in the care of the state (as is usually the case) should be adopted out to a choice which is suitable - which is what we are arguing about. I simply do not find gay adoption suitable as I think the traditional family with both gender roles represented is by far the most superor form of family as shown by broken families on estates around this country.


Do you also believe that single persons should not be allowed to adopt or give birth? Should disabled folk and those without the financial means to give a child the best life have forced hysterectomies and vasectomies?

With single persons no I don't think its at all desirable that they adopt, again I would much prefer a traditional family to adopt. As for the second part, no because thats not the business of the state - adoption however is the business of the state because its the last resort for those children therefore the state should make an informed choice.


Again, should only 100% healthy heterosexual couples be allowed children? I believe that support ought to be placed on family life, but not necessarily the typical 2.4 children model as it simply isn't always the best way for a family to run. Divorce happens, and that can often be far better for the family than attempting to keep a loveless couple together and give the children a warped view of how families work.

The typical traditional family is by far the most superor model, again look at the results since divorce was made easier. We have estates now full of children who have a mother and the father figure is the state; the state provides the income, the state proves the benefits, the state provides the social workers who comes around every once in a while.


If it's lack of an opposing gender influence that worries you, consider that humans are generally somewhat social creatures and it's extremely rare for a child to grow up without a lot of input from family friends, and regardless of that "gender" a whole is in a species as advanced as ours something that's really only necessary as a sexual thing rather than social or mental.

However a mother and father figure are hard, if not impossible to replace as others have addressed.


as long as they're caring parents and they love you, would you as a child be happy?

So would you support a, to quote, 'loving' incest couple adopting? or how about polygamy relationship in which all those in the relationship 'love one another'? surely there's no problem as they all love one another, but for some reason I suspect your reply will be no because you simply wouldn't be comfortable with those two relationships adopting and wouldn't find it in the best interests of the child to be adopted by a couple comprised of a grandmother and a daughter for example or a man with 10 lovers.

Rozi
14-07-2011, 09:08 AM
So far from what I've read of this thread, the main argument seems to be the issue that the children MIGHT get bullied from being adopted by a same sex couple? There are 2 issues with that, firstly in our harsh society, if you're going to get bullied for being adopted by a same-sex couple, you're more likely going to get bullied for living in a children's home or being fostered, which of course is highly likely if you're going to be adopted. Personally I've never seen or heard of someone getting bullied for either of these things apart from on Tracy Beaker (which of course isn't real and a Jacqueline Wilson version which is so far from reality it might as well be set on the moon).

Secondly there is the issue that there SHOULDN'T be a risk of bullying. Obviously we're still in the process of social change with true homosexual rights and true acceptance. Obviously you're never going to fully change the view of every person in the country, like we still have bigoted people who believe women shouldn't have the vote but one primary way of removing stereotypes and targeting is to force acceptance and basically say "like it or lump it". Children aren't born with an instinct to discriminate against those with same-sex parents, it's picked up from their family and wider society. The negative attitude to same-sex relationships wont change until they're viewed as equals, firstly in government and then in a knock-on effect to society. Obviously the government can't turn round one day and say "Ok from now on same-sex couples are exactly like heterosexual couples with the same marriage rights blahblahbalh" but adoption is truely the next logical step towards equality, which is the wider argument.



Also there is no evidence of a same-sex couple being unable to raise children "properly" as I'm sure that's been bought up. About half the people my age I know are from single parent families and some of them have no contact with their other parent. They only have one gender as a "role model" but personally I cannot see how this has effected them negatively, and having two loving parents, no matter what sex, has so many benefits over having a single parent both financially and emotionally.

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2011, 09:14 AM
Obviously we're still in the process of social change with true homosexual rights and true acceptance.

What rights are homosexuals missing? if anything they [homosexuals] now have more rights than anybody else with the fact that I could now get a police visit/be taken to court if I say anything to offend a homosexual - but if somebody offends me concerning anything like fashion, my hair, my nose - anything, then I can't take them to court. The following quote is on the concept of 'rights' and liberty, and makes the point that rights and liberties come as individuals and not as members of groups - apply the quote to homosexuality concerning 'gay rights'.

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” - Ron Paul


Obviously you're never going to fully change the view of every person in the country, like we still have bigoted people who believe women shouldn't have the vote but one primary way of removing stereotypes and targeting is to force acceptance and basically say "like it or lump it".

Really, is it? I thought the best way to change minds was to debate and prove the other side wrong as opposed to destroying our civil liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the name of 'equality' along with avoiding having a powerful state which decided what the public thinks which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Its interesting to note that even in liberal U.S. states, gay marriage has been knocked back whenever the public vote on it.

Skittle
14-07-2011, 02:43 PM
Everyone is equal in the human race. It is right if homosexual's can adopt kids because their's nothing wrong with them their just ordianry people liek everyone else. Same goes to any other Sexualality

Tom
14-07-2011, 03:24 PM
So would you support a, to quote, 'loving' incest couple adopting? or how about polygamy relationship in which all those in the relationship 'love one another'? surely there's no problem as they all love one another, but for some reason I suspect your reply will be no because you simply wouldn't be comfortable with those two relationships adopting and wouldn't find it in the best interests of the child to be adopted by a couple comprised of a grandmother and a daughter for example or a man with 10 lovers.

In fact, my answer to this would be 'Yes'. Everyone deserves something they want. Even if it is adoption. Unless there's something whereby they can't one for obvious reasons such as mental health. You can't help who you are, you can't help being gay, bi, straight, transvestite etc. It's just the way you were born. I could argue this all day I've said pretty much everything, I'm just repeating everything over and over when people ask questions. :P

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2011, 03:29 PM
In fact, my answer to this would be 'Yes'. Everyone deserves something they want. Even if it is adoption. Unless there's something whereby they can't one for obvious reasons such as mental health. You can't help who you are, you can't help being gay, bi, straight, transvestite etc. It's just the way you were born. I could argue this all day I've said pretty much everything, I'm just repeating everything over and over when people ask questions. :P

Our disagreement is clear then, that you think a man with numerous 'lovers', an incest couple or a gay couple adopting is a good enviroment for a child to grow up in, I do not and still retain that the traditional family cannot be replaced as shown by children on estates around the country who have broken homes with a father figure and a mother figure.

Tom
14-07-2011, 03:55 PM
Our disagreement is clear then, that you think a man with numerous 'lovers', an incest couple or a gay couple adopting is a good enviroment for a child to grow up in, I do not and still retain that the traditional family cannot be replaced as shown by children on estates around the country who have broken homes with a father figure and a mother figure.

That's like saying if the childs real mother had numerous 'lovers', that is a good place for a child to grow up. You're missing the point.

The Don
14-07-2011, 04:33 PM
In fact, my answer to this would be 'Yes'. Everyone deserves something they want. Even if it is adoption. Unless there's something whereby they can't one for obvious reasons such as mental health. You can't help who you are, you can't help being gay, bi, straight, transvestite etc. It's just the way you were born. I could argue this all day I've said pretty much everything, I'm just repeating everything over and over when people ask questions. :P

So you think incest couples should be able to adopt? I'm pretty sure that a household with those morals wouldn't be suitable in raising a child. I'm one for equal rights, but when those equal rights violate the rights of an innocent child, that's where it needs to be stopped.

Tom
14-07-2011, 04:36 PM
So you think incest couples should be able to adopt? I'm pretty sure that a household with those morals wouldn't be suitable in raising a child. I'm one for equal rights, but when those equal rights violate the rights of an innocent child, that's where it needs to be stopped.

Hmm, I suppose you're right there in a way. If an incest couple do adopt it's not right and it's not good for the child's 'well-being'.

Okay, but everything else should be acceptable?

The Don
14-07-2011, 04:46 PM
Hmm, I suppose you're right there in a way. If an incest couple do adopt it's not right and it's not good for the child's 'well-being'.

Okay, but everything else should be acceptable?

This is a hard topic, because I think that a gay couple should be able to adopt however, as other people have said, it does increase the risk of bullying to the child ,but with people becoming more open minded, I think in a few years time, this will no longer be a problem and I can't see why a gay couple who have had all the necessary background checks shouldn't be able to adopt. Since no one has provided scientific evidence that children need both a mother and father figure, this shouldn't be an issue.

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2011, 05:05 PM
This is a hard topic, because I think that a gay couple should be able to adopt however, as other people have said, it does increase the risk of bullying to the child ,but with people becoming more open minded, I think in a few years time, this will no longer be a problem and I can't see why a gay couple who have had all the necessary background checks shouldn't be able to adopt. Since no one has provided scientific evidence that children need both a mother and father figure, this shouldn't be an issue.

Proof of why we need strong traditional families can be found on estates around the country, there is no way to scientifically 'measure' the traditional family. However if you examine this country from when divorce was made easier, you will find a strong relation/a direct link between the breakdown of households and during the period of time from the 1960s onwards. Social attitudes were very negative to the breakup of marriage, and viewing the results of marriage breakup - was that such a bad thing? I think not.

With homosexual adoption, the roles of mother and father figures can't be replaced and thats the prime reason why I am against.

FlyingJesus
14-07-2011, 05:07 PM
You're right of course, loveless households are great places for children to grow up and everyone with divorced parents is a criminal

The Don
14-07-2011, 05:34 PM
Proof of why we need strong traditional families can be found on estates around the country, there is no way to scientifically 'measure' the traditional family. However if you examine this country from when divorce was made easier, you will find a strong relation/a direct link between the breakdown of households and during the period of time from the 1960s onwards. Social attitudes were very negative to the breakup of marriage, and viewing the results of marriage breakup - was that such a bad thing? I think not.

With homosexual adoption, the roles of mother and father figures can't be replaced and thats the prime reason why I am against.

No,because a single parent raising a child, a alcoholic father raising a child, a loveless couple raising a child are all different to a gay couple raising a child. I find it hard to accept that you can compare an estate family with a gay couple raising a child.

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2011, 05:37 PM
You're right of course, loveless households are great places for children to grow up and everyone with divorced parents is a criminal

I haven't said that at all, infact I rather feel sorry for all sides - they're victims of social changes which have cheapened marriage from the 60s onwards.


No,because a single parent raising a child, a alcoholic father raising a child, a loveless couple raising a child are all different to a gay couple raising a child. I find it hard to accept that you can compare an estate family with a gay couple raising a child.

I'm comparing the lack of a father figure and mother figure and the results from that.

Technologic
14-07-2011, 06:14 PM
I haven't said that at all, infact I rather feel sorry for all sides - they're victims of social changes which have cheapened marriage from the 60s onwards.



I'm comparing the lack of a father figure and mother figure and the results from that.

As i said earlier, my mother was brought up by three sisters. Do you oppose that?

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2011, 06:40 PM
As i said earlier, my mother was brought up by three sisters. Do you oppose that?

It was better than her going into state care away from the family, but yes it would have been much better had she had been in a traditional family. Had she gone into state care (if there had been nobody to look after her) then hopefully she would have ended up as part of a traditional family.

Inseriousity.
14-07-2011, 07:22 PM
Social attitudes were very negative to the breakup of marriage, and viewing the results of marriage breakup - was that such a bad thing? I think not.

Oh yes, two people trapped in a loveless marriage with children stuck in the middle. That must be very healthy for them. I think not.

Technologic
14-07-2011, 09:00 PM
It was better than her going into state care away from the family, but yes it would have been much better had she had been in a traditional family. Had she gone into state care (if there had been nobody to look after her) then hopefully she would have ended up as part of a traditional family.

That isnt the way my mother sees it but obviously she turned out wrong so ill let you off.

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2011, 09:10 PM
Oh yes, two people trapped in a loveless marriage with children stuck in the middle. That must be very healthy for them. I think not.

The point would be to discourage these marriages in the first place. If the old social attitudes still existed, girls would be afraid to have sex in fear of the shame of becoming pregnant along with wanting to get married to the right guy and the other way round. It brings in a degree of rationality.

I would personally get the government out of marriage anyway as I stated before.


That isnt the way my mother sees it but obviously she turned out wrong so ill let you off.

Haven't stated every case from each would turn out wrong, no system is infallible nor is any system totally wrong in all cases. But on the whole, yes the traditional family is by far the best and again I pointed to broken homes around the country where the woman is married to the state and the child has no father, the state provides where the father should do.

FlyingJesus
14-07-2011, 09:13 PM
You do know that a lot of council estates are occupied by married people, right?

Inseriousity.
14-07-2011, 09:17 PM
If the old attitudes existed, girls wouldn't be afraid to have sex, they'd have it then have to hush up their baby when they make a mistake. The "traditional" family unit only works if the family provides stability and love. If one is lacking then I find the homosexual couple who can provide it far more superior to the heterosexual couple who can't.

Tom
14-07-2011, 09:17 PM
This 'debate' is like saying, you can't eat 2 strawberry's at the same time, you have to eat a strawberry and a grape. You cannot force someone to be straight or gay and as I've said - what if they want a child? But obviously they can't because they're gay and it's there fault. That's the way I see this 'debate' going. That it's there fault they're gay and that it needs to be changed or else you can't have a baby. It doesn't matter whether you have 2 women, 2 men, 1 of each parents!

Inseriousity.
14-07-2011, 09:19 PM
This 'debate' is like saying, you can't eat 2 strawberry's at the same time, you have to eat a strawberry and a grape.

LOLOLOL weirdest analogy I've ever read.

Tom
14-07-2011, 09:21 PM
LOLOLOL weirdest analogy I've ever read.

It's late okay?! Lol! It's all I could think of. But honestly it's like that ;( personally speaking, when I'm settled down I would want to adopt I suppose? Then they grow old and I'll kick them out (joke). But all I want is for one child, who's been put up for adoption for one reason or another to be happy!

------------------------

Awkward when it's talking about Gay Adoption on Eastenders ;o

The Don
14-07-2011, 11:00 PM
I'm comparing the lack of a father figure and mother figure and the results from that.

Yes, but estates tend to have other issues such as poverty, crime etc, it's hardly fair to compare those results on the grounds that they lack father/mother figures, as gay couples who want to adopt wont be coming from estates etc.

Conservative,
15-07-2011, 09:57 AM
I read the first & last page, and to be honest, how can this even be a debate?

I've been living with a gay couple for the last 2 weeks (my Godfather & his partner) for work experience, and I can honestly say they are very caring and I would have no problem (other than the food they cook being a bit different to what I'm used to) living with them permanently should something happen to my parents.

Yes, the child might get bullied for having 2 Mums or Dads, but if it's not for having 2 mums or Dads, it will be for something else - as FJ already said - they'll get bullied for being adopted anyway.

As long as they go through the normal procedure of checks and forms as any heterosexual couple, I have no problem with a same-sex couple adopting. If you do, go back to the 19th century.

Shar
15-07-2011, 11:16 AM
I read the first & last page, and to be honest, how can this even be a debate?

I've been living with a gay couple for the last 2 weeks (my Godfather & his partner) for work experience, and I can honestly say they are very caring and I would have no problem (other than the food they cook being a bit different to what I'm used to) living with them permanently should something happen to my parents.

Yes, the child might get bullied for having 2 Mums or Dads, but if it's not for having 2 mums or Dads, it will be for something else - as FJ already said - they'll get bullied for being adopted anyway.

As long as they go through the normal procedure of checks and forms as any heterosexual couple, I have no problem with a same-sex couple adopting. If you do, go back to the 19th century.
Wait what - people get bullied for being adopted? What?


I don't see the problem in it, all a child needs is shelter and loving parents.

Marbian
15-07-2011, 11:21 AM
I have strong opinion's over homosexuality anyway. If a gay man can still make babies, then he should. The way I see things, you don't need to fancy that person to love them, to make babies and a family with them. Yeah, adoption is great, but I think it should be for people who can't make babies.

After all, life it self is about living on the humans, and surviving. I accept homosexuals as freedom, and being, doing, whatever you like. I don't accept it as a normal thing though, but I don't care about that and I wouldn't rub it into someone who chooses to be gay.

And another way I see it is, human and dog, obviously... wrong, isn't meant to be. But I find my dog cute, should I do it anyway? hmm no... and I think the same as human man to man. Obviously, the concept of sex altogether is producing a human. You can't do that with a man, and of course, i don't even think we need scinence to know it's man and women.

I hope no one tries to troll me because I think this. Everyone has different opinion's.

Inseriousity.
15-07-2011, 02:01 PM
I have strong opinion's over homosexuality anyway. If a gay man can still make babies, then he should. The way I see things, you don't need to fancy that person to love them, to make babies and a family with them. Yeah, adoption is great, but I think it should be for people who can't make babies.

After all, life it self is about living on the humans, and surviving. I accept homosexuals as freedom, and being, doing, whatever you like. I don't accept it as a normal thing though, but I don't care about that and I wouldn't rub it into someone who chooses to be gay.

And another way I see it is, human and dog, obviously... wrong, isn't meant to be. But I find my dog cute, should I do it anyway? hmm no... and I think the same as human man to man. Obviously, the concept of sex altogether is producing a human. You can't do that with a man, and of course, i don't even think we need scinence to know it's man and women.

I hope no one tries to troll me because I think this. Everyone has different opinion's.

Gay couples can't make babies. There isn't much logic in your argument! I think there's a difference between a man and a man, woman and a woman and a man doing his dog. The difference being that the dog doesn't have a choice whereas men and women have the choice to have a relationship with the same sex as them.

Technologic
15-07-2011, 03:17 PM
I have strong opinion's over homosexuality anyway. If a gay man can still make babies, then he should. The way I see things, you don't need to fancy that person to love them, to make babies and a family with them. Yeah, adoption is great, but I think it should be for people who can't make babies.

After all, life it self is about living on the humans, and surviving. I accept homosexuals as freedom, and being, doing, whatever you like. I don't accept it as a normal thing though, but I don't care about that and I wouldn't rub it into someone who chooses to be gay.

And another way I see it is, human and dog, obviously... wrong, isn't meant to be. But I find my dog cute, should I do it anyway? hmm no... and I think the same as human man to man. Obviously, the concept of sex altogether is producing a human. You can't do that with a man, and of course, i don't even think we need scinence to know it's man and women.

I hope no one tries to troll me because I think this. Everyone has different opinion's.

Woof woof.

Also, gays can't have babies so you're for gay adoption then?

Matthew
15-07-2011, 03:45 PM
Yes, I do think that homosexuals should be able to adopt, but I do think that it would be better for a child to be adopted by a man and a woman, as opposed to two men or two women.

Being adopted is much better than moving from care home to care home, and so as long as the two women/two men are loving and caring then of course they should be able to adopt.

hayleymareexo
15-07-2011, 04:17 PM
Yes, the child might get bullied for having 2 Mums or Dads, but if it's not for having 2 mums or Dads, it will be for something else - as FJ already said - they'll get bullied for being adopted anyway.

I agree with this completely, and with still being in school now, i would much rather be bullied for having two loving parents of the same sex, than bullied for my parents abandoning me and having harsh comments such as " your parents left you, your not good enough, no one wants you"
Better same sex parents, than none.

Same sex couples are just as capable of loving and caring and providing for a child, as a male-female couple. So why shouldn't they get the wonderful experience of bringing up a child. The decision should not be made based upon the sex on the parents, but of how they can provide for the child, and give them a better life than they would otherwise get living in poor conditions of an orphanage.

Marbian
15-07-2011, 06:22 PM
Gay couples can't make babies. There isn't much logic in your argument! I think there's a difference between a man and a man, woman and a woman and a man doing his dog. The difference being that the dog doesn't have a choice whereas men and women have the choice to have a relationship with the same sex as them.

Please don't ignore everything else I said and point out the small bits. The rest I said made sense to what you bolded. Only because people have the choice, doesn't make it morally and right. I accept it all as I said... We should be allowed to choose what we want. But that won't stop my own opinions.

Inseriousity.
15-07-2011, 06:39 PM
Please don't ignore everything else I said and point out the small bits. The rest I said made sense to what you bolded. Only because people have the choice, doesn't make it morally and right. I accept it all as I said... We should be allowed to choose what we want. But that won't stop my own opinions.

No it didn't make any sense. Ofc it's not "normal" because as you point out, reproduction is about a male and a female. But this is adoption. The kids that they adopt won't turn gay because their "parents" are gay so the human race will continue to "live on and survive."

I have no intention of stopping your opinions. This is the debates forum so I'm debating them.

Marbian
15-07-2011, 07:10 PM
No it didn't make any sense. Ofc it's not "normal" because as you point out, reproduction is about a male and a female. But this is adoption. The kids that they adopt won't turn gay because their "parents" are gay so the human race will continue to "live on and survive."

I have no intention of stopping your opinions. This is the debates forum so I'm debating them.

Yeah I'm not arguing either. It's a discussion board. I'm not going to post my opinion's and expect others to think different.

But my point wasn't that the child would turn out homosexual if it was adopted by gay couples. My point was, the man that chooses to be homosexual, could have a baby of his own. That's 1 life not living if that male decides because he fancy men, he won't go out with a women and produce a baby, and a family. I'm hetrosexual, I don't pick a girl because I fancy them. This is just one thing I can't answer to my self. That I have gay friends, very close to girls like best friends.. .But it makes me think... then why wouldn't you get with her? Unless you are just someone who goes for looks. And if you wouldn't have your own child because of that, them me say whaa?!?!

Adoption together, is great. I'm not saying no to 2 men, I'm saying if they can make their own, then they should. You don't need to fancy a women to have sex. I'm straight, and fanny scares me too... deal with it.

Sometimes I think people are gay to be gay. defintely with all the gay prides, rainbows, pink... oo you know what,, im gay did you know? some times it drives me nuts.

Again, please remember these are my moral thinkings. For the generation we're in, my whatever thinkings are freedom, a choice, allowing to do, and be want you want to be. Meaning, tranfestite, isn't obviously RIGHT, but I'd accept it through that person wanting that. But I won't accept it morally as something normal. It just wouldn't happen personally. I can't change my own thoughts of life because people DO IT.

buttons
15-07-2011, 07:21 PM
Yeah I'm not arguing either. It's a discussion board. I'm not going to post my opinion's and expect others to think different.

But my point wasn't that the child would turn out homosexual if it was adopted by gay couples. My point was, the man that chooses to be homosexual, could have a baby of his own. That's 1 life not living if that male decides because he fancy men, he won't go out with a women and produce a baby, and a family. I'm hetrosexual, I don't pick a girl because I fancy them. This is just one thing I can't answer to my self. That I have gay friends, very close to girls like best friends.. .But it makes me think... then why wouldn't you get with her? Unless you are just someone who goes for looks. And if you wouldn't have your own child because of that, them me say whaa?!?!

Adoption together, is great. I'm not saying no to 2 men, I'm saying if they can make their own, then they should. You don't need to fancy a women to have sex. I'm straight, and fanny scares me too... deal with it.

Sometimes I think people are gay to be gay. defintely with all the gay prides, rainbows, pink... oo you know what,, im gay did you know? some times it drives me nuts.

Again, please remember these are my moral thinkings. For the generation we're in, my whatever thinkings are freedom, a choice, allowing to do, and be want you want to be. Meaning, tranfestite, isn't obviously RIGHT, but I'd accept it through that person wanting that. But I won't accept it morally as something normal. It just wouldn't happen personally. I can't change my own thoughts of life because people DO IT.
because they don't want to have sex with women or spend the rest of their life with one. wtf:S so what about the children who are made but are not wanted? & are given up for adoption? isn't THAT a waste of a life? yeah gay people choose to be gay, they choose to be bullied and outcasted wd

FlyingJesus
15-07-2011, 07:30 PM
the man that chooses to be homosexual, could have a baby of his own. That's 1 life not living if that male decides because he fancy men, he won't go out with a women and produce a baby, and a family.

Would you suggest that sex should only EVER be for reproduction then, as opposed to fun or love? By your logic every time I don't have sex with a passing woman I'm wasting life and therefore ought to try impregnating every female I see


I have gay friends, very close to girls like best friends.. .But it makes me think... then why wouldn't you get with her?

Because they're gay :S do you have sex with your male friends that you're close to?

Marbian
15-07-2011, 07:52 PM
Yeah, miss a load of valid points in my post again. wd. i would answer the questions, but was already answered when i posted them.

"Because they're gay do you have sex with your male friends that you're close to?"

hmm... are you stupid or just stuck up in the gay community of pride and joy? of course i wouldnt, because it's not moral/normal. Ever heard the saying not going by looks? That counts to everyone.

No one will take in my opinion's if their stuck in the community of oh im gay. yeah, i made a name and everything for it. but no one will because no one likes getting told what they shouldn't do, and if it's something they want and someone says its not normal, you're gunno fight against it. but most of my valid points don't even need science facts to know it's right.

I've quoted many times that this is MY MORAL CODE. But that doesn't matter anymore... Who the **** goes by moral ways of life these days? no one. I don't give a **** abotu gays, straights... aye if i wake up and want to suck a ****, i would if i wanted to. Because I would be allowed to do so.

The only reason why I'm pointing out to what should be right, is so you know why I think gays should still produce their own if they are able to.

FlyingJesus
15-07-2011, 08:14 PM
If not going by looks goes for everyone then surely you WOULD have sex with all your male friends because you obviously have an emotional connection to them, you're not making any sense. You've not at any point mentioned why being gay goes against your morals or what you base them on, you've just shown massive ignorance by suggesting that gay people should have straight sex if they want kids - firstly they obviously won't want to take part in such an act, and secondly I'm sure it's probably not quite that easy to find someone who's willing to sleep with you and have your baby but not have any romantic connection. Gays as a couple obviously cannot "produce their own", it's nothing to do with wanting to rebel or be part of some liberal community, I'm not sure which of your points you think are valid but science and logic are definitely not with you

GommeInc
15-07-2011, 09:27 PM
Many children grow up fine with a broken family, I think we're all flying away from the central point of this discussion. It's not about the foundations and the structure of the family, it's about the individuals. A rich, married couple could make bad parents and be neglectful, yet have a "traditional" structure.

Richie
16-07-2011, 03:53 PM
This is slightly off topic but isn't it mad the way one person can say they are heterosexual or homosexual, when really people just single themselves out because of the sexual intercourse they have with a man or a woman which they enjoy. It's like saying I like that person because they have a willy lol. Anyway, I still don't totally agree with it but who am I to decide whether it's right or wrong?

-:Undertaker:-
18-07-2011, 09:53 PM
You do know that a lot of council estates are occupied by married people, right?

Indeed I do, but I also know that a lot of estates (not just Council) are home to single mothers and broken families as opposed to say back in 1950 and before where these problems mostly did not exist.


If the old attitudes existed, girls wouldn't be afraid to have sex, they'd have it then have to hush up their baby when they make a mistake. The "traditional" family unit only works if the family provides stability and love. If one is lacking then I find the homosexual couple who can provide it far more superior to the heterosexual couple who can't.

If you make a mistake you have to suffer for it. Sex is a choice, not a need. It would rather be a good thing if old attitudes existed, as then we wouldn't have young girls becoming pregnant because they would be afraid of social attitudes towards them - everyone is motivated by fear, fear works. In many cases fear is good, in this case we'd be spared the numerous examples of unmarried mothers who rely upon the state (married to the state), we'd be spared the countless abortions that are performed year on year because people keep making a 'mistake' of which they do not bear the consquences rather the child does so and we would also be spared the broken homes that we now have to put up with around us.


Yes, but estates tend to have other issues such as poverty, crime etc, it's hardly fair to compare those results on the grounds that they lack father/mother figures, as gay couples who want to adopt wont be coming from estates etc.

I say again though, my opposition to gay adoption is based upon the traditional family being further undermined and judging from the results so far of its destruction (see above), I hate to see what happens next.

buttons
18-07-2011, 10:12 PM
Undertaker are you basically saying we should go back to the times where woman had to marry because they were expected to rely on men and be housewives? where they couldn't have a career and had to stay in marriages that they didn't want to be in just to survive? cause that's what it sounds like, the reason we have unmarried women or single parents is because they don't have to marry or stay in marriages and why should they?

FlyingJesus
18-07-2011, 10:19 PM
Dan you seem to be basing your views on a minority figure and the council estate subculture which has nothing to do with homosexual partnerships, divorce rates, or the sanctity of marriage - and those things in turn have no absolute and calculable effect on how a child grows up. Basically you have no backing to anything you've said here other than the repetition of the phrase "traditional family", as though each person ought to be brought up in one uniform way regardless of circumstance

-:Undertaker:-
18-07-2011, 10:21 PM
Undertaker are you basically saying we should go back to the times where woman had to marry because they were expected to rely on men and be housewives? where they couldn't have a career and had to stay in marriages that they didn't want to be in just to survive? cause that's what it sounds like, the reason we have unmarried women or single parents is because they don't have to marry or stay in marriages and why should they?

I'm not saying that, i'm simply saying that the negative social attitudes to broken families were good because a) it made people think beforehand and b) it made people think twice before breaking up a family as so many are broken up today for often reasons which are inferior to the wellbeing of the child/children of the family. When you look around at the damage caused by this, we'd do well to have this attitude back.


Dan you seem to be basing your views on a minority figure and the council estate subculture which has nothing to do with homosexual partnerships, divorce rates, or the sanctity of marriage - and those things in turn have no absolute and calculable effect on how a child grows up. Basically you have no backing to anything you've said here other than the repetition of the phrase "traditional family", as though each person ought to be brought up in one uniform way regardless of circumstance

But yes it does. They themselves, when they grow up, are less likely to respect marriage or the traditional family and the values which come from it. The results of the breakdown of the traditional family against the results of when we had strong negative attitudes to anything other than the traditional family are very poor. The decline in manners, morality and so forth has all stemmed from this breakdown which was not present until divorce laws were relaxed - I support the relaxation of divorce laws as I want government out of it eventually, but there's no denying that its led to many broken homes in which overtime the prize placed upon commitment, raising children and marriage has declined.

The issue I take with homosexual adoption is that this is the further weakening of the traditional family which I find dangerous given the results that we have already seen. I think a mother figure and a father figure are very very important in a family, something which a homosexual relationship does not offer just as a unmarried mother does not offer.

FlyingJesus
18-07-2011, 10:25 PM
You're still yet to provide evidence that growing up in a loveless house where the parents are forced to pretend they like each other despite all feelings having faded is better than a child having two (or more) loving and happy parents who are free to use their energies in a positive way rather than living a lie

-:Undertaker:-
18-07-2011, 10:33 PM
You're still yet to provide evidence that growing up in a loveless house where the parents are forced to pretend they like each other despite all feelings having faded is better than a child having two (or more) loving and happy parents who are free to use their energies in a positive way rather than living a lie

This explains it best and touches lightly on the subject;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzGDIFYV14g

While it may not be in the interests of the man or woman to remain together, it is in many cases in the interests of the children to stay together. Now i'm not classing all relationships under this, some (abusive for example) do have reason for the benefit of the children to divorce and seperate. However it cannot be denied that some couples even today stay together for the benefit of the children whereas in a normal, childless relationship they would have seperated long beforehand. This creeping of the thought that 'we can simply seperate and act as though we are a childless couple' is what undermines the marriage, and its often backed by the usual 'well its in the best interests of the children' when infact its not - its merely done, often, for the convenience of the adults.

In homosexual adoption, I say again; the father figure and the mother figure are both not there. In the case of the unmarried mother or the unmarried father this is also true - and often leads to a bad upbringing for the child.

buttons
18-07-2011, 10:38 PM
you keep referring to a broken home as one without a mother or a father, having an abusive/uncaring parent is more damaging and broken than a family where there is only one caring parent or two caring males/females. like it has already been said children will grow up better with anyone who cares for them, it doesn't have to be both a father and mother. you seem only concerned with the state of society rather than the children who have to grow up in it? I was brought up in both settings pretty much, lived with my mum and dad until they split when I was 11 then lived with just my mum ever since and I don't see the difference! nor do we live on the estate or whatever that is. :S

not to mention humans have been ******* and letting the women bring up children by themselves since time began. the guys would spread their seed while women looked for the best mate. so yknow there has been promiscuity forever and you look at certain cultures where girls are forced to have sex aged 12/13 ...

GommeInc
18-07-2011, 10:44 PM
Wait what - people get bullied for being adopted? What?

I don't see the problem in it, all a child needs is shelter and loving parents.
Children are evil buggars :P They pick on anything. Gingerphobia is one major one I can think of which makes no sense. What teaches them its stupid is either the child being bullied steps up and proves to them they're not freaks or teachers have a stern word with the bullies.

FlyingJesus
18-07-2011, 10:46 PM
Then we're back to the old questions which were never answered: should widows, the disabled, the poor, and the uneducated have their children taken away from them as they are not able to give the very best? And what EVIDENCE (other than some guy saying that it's not a fab idea) do you have that children are in some way now "wrong" as a direct result of having just one parent?


This creeping of the thought that 'we can simply seperate and act as though we are a childless couple' is what undermines the marriage, and its often backed by the usual 'well its in the best interests of the children' when infact its not - its merely done, often, for the convenience of the adults.

What utter nonsense you spew Daniel. I have never in my lifetime heard anyone suggest that separation means the parents can act as though childless, and you are still (despite repeating the questions and points) refusing to combat the fact that living in a loveless environment is not good for anyone, let alone children. You speak of divorce being for the convenience of the adults, yet somehow manage to ignore the fact that a freer and happier parent (albeit as a single one) is far more capable of loving and caring for a child than one who is constantly forced to live with disgust and distaste.

-:Undertaker:-
18-07-2011, 10:51 PM
you keep referring to a broken home as one without a mother or a father, having an abusive/uncaring parent is more damaging and broken than a family where there is only one caring parent or two caring males/females. like it has already been said children will grow up better with anyone who cares for them, it doesn't have to be both a father and mother. you seem only concerned with the state of society rather than the children who have to grow up in it? I was brought up in both settings pretty much, lived with my mum and dad until they split when I was 11 then lived with just my mum ever since and I don't see the difference! nor do we live on the estate or whatever that is. :S

It depends what you mean by that. By uncaring I suspect you mean 'a couple which has problems' as opposed to somebody who has no interest in children - the second being something that you sadly cannot change and that they shouldn't have had children in the first place. You are mincing words by confusing, perhaps purposely, uncaring with a couple which wishes to seperate - in the instance of the second one which is what I suspect you really mean, it is better in many cases that the family stay together and resolve differences rather than quickly jump to the solution of divorce as so many do. I gave the example before, of how many people who would seperate in childless circumstances do not seperate when they have children because they know that seperation will have a negative affect upon the children.

In terms of a father and a mother, it does have to be that for the best results. Its not statistically 100% successful because as we know, some relationships are abusive or have an uncaring partner (who is uncaring to the children, thats the distinction). A homosexual couple does not offer this as a unmarried mother does not, therefore the children are missing out on something which I believe is quite important; a mother figure and a father figure.

On yourself personally, if you say you were not affected by their seperation then you must be a very odd exception.


Then we're back to the old questions which were never answered: should widows, the disabled, the poor, and the uneducated have their children taken away from them as they are not able to give the very best? And what EVIDENCE (other than some guy saying that it's not a fab idea) do you have that children are in some way now "wrong" as a direct result of having just one parent?

No because its not the place of the state to do so. However with adopting children, the state has been put incharge of these children and therefore the state should seek the best option for the children. In terms of evidence of the results of broken families, look around you - its part of the decline in mannerisms, a decline in faith to your partner, a collapse in commitment, a collapse in the sense of duty as a family man, a sense that the state will provide where the father should - all those factors are passed onto these children which is increasingly why marriage and the traditional family itself is being eroded with negative consquences.


What utter nonsense you spew Daniel. I have never in my lifetime heard anyone suggest that separation means the parents can act as though childless, and you are still (despite repeating the questions and points) refusing to combat the fact that living in a loveless environment is not good for anyone, let alone children. You speak of divorce being for the convenience of the adults, yet somehow manage to ignore the fact that a freer and happier parent (albeit as a single one) is far more capable of loving and caring for a child than one who is constantly forced to live with disgust and distaste.

Actually you've read wrong, I have said that a childless couple will often seperate due to circumstances which a married couple will not because they have the interests of the children at mind as opposed to their own sole interests. Now many still do this, but increasingly divorce is being used as a method of ending a relationship on the same basis that a childless relationship would usually end.

On the second point, please see the video - i'm not denying their goodwill, but as Hitchens states - its like trying to lift a weight with one arm, you cannot do it. The results of this can be seen in the number of unmarried mothers who now rely on the state.

FlyingJesus
18-07-2011, 10:54 PM
it is better in many cases that the family stay together and resolve differences rather than quickly jump to the solution of divorce as so many do.


In terms of a father and a mother, it does have to be that for the best results.

Why why why why why why why why why why why

One day you'll actually attempt to give some evidence rather than repeating your illogical and infactual nonsense

-:Undertaker:-
18-07-2011, 10:59 PM
Why why why why why why why why why why why

One day you'll actually attempt to give some evidence rather than repeating your illogical and infactual nonsense

Because it offers a mother and father figure, and if you cannot see why those are important - then look at broken families around Britain. The decline in manners, the decline in commitment, the decline in the sense of duty to the family, the decline towards sex and what standards should be applied; these all arise from this lack of either/one figure. It can be seen clearly (coupled with abortion being legal) in how young girls now behave when it comes to sex whereas they did not behave in the same manner back in the 1950s and before.

GommeInc
18-07-2011, 11:05 PM
Because it offers a mother and father figure, and if you cannot see why those are important - then look at broken families around Britain. The decline in manners, the decline in commitment, the decline in the sense of duty to the family; these all arise from this lack of either/one figure.
But is it necessarily about the decline in traditional family structure? Many have mentioned that marriage means little - you can be in a loveless marriage afterall :) A homosexual couple are well within the boundaries of supplying endless love to a child. In some ways, the fact they want to commit themselves into adopting is a good amount of evidence that they're keen to give a child a loving family - it's not "benefitting" them selfishly afterall - why want a screaming brat around you? Heck, many adopting, married couples may only be doing it for selfish reasons as they may not be able to have children of their own (low sperm count, problems with the perspective mother etc.), to fulfill selfish desires of wanting a child for the sake of having one, than to give them a loving home.

It's a case by case scenario, we can not label all housing estate families as incapable, or homosexuals etc.

FlyingJesus
18-07-2011, 11:08 PM
That is not evidence, that is speculation. The most disrespectful people I know - and the ones who resent their parents the most - all actually happen to be ones whose parents are still together. The decline in manners, commitment, and duty to the family are far more likely to be because we as a society don't have kids in order to provide for us any more, we have them because we want kids. That's just one factor to it, probably not even the biggest of them, but it's certainly more logical to place blame on societal changes than single parenting which has gone on throughout history. You may in fact note that for most of history fathers have not had anything like an active role in the upbringing of children, something which didn't really become the done thing until the last century or two, yet somehow you overlooked all that and decided that a tried and tested method of rearing is a sensible scapegoat for society's shortcomings in recent generations.

Shar
18-07-2011, 11:18 PM
Children are evil buggars :P They pick on anything. Gingerphobia is one major one I can think of which makes no sense. What teaches them its stupid is either the child being bullied steps up and proves to them they're not freaks or teachers have a stern word with the bullies.
Yeah they are. I haven't heard or witnessed anyone being bullied for being adopted that's why it took me by surprise.

-:Undertaker:-
18-07-2011, 11:20 PM
But is it necessarily about the decline in traditional family structure? Many have mentioned that marriage means little - you can be in a loveless marriage afterall :)

But this is my point, a loveless marriage between whom though? a marriage can still work with problems, many couples lose the love they had whilst first together and stay together for the sake of the children and keeping the family together. In many cases such as this, the excuse of 'well its in the interests of the children' is used by the couple to justify what are their own selfish desires put above those of the children.


A homosexual couple are well within the boundaries of supplying endless love to a child. In some ways, the fact they want to commit themselves into adopting is a good amount of evidence that they're keen to give a child a loving family - it's not "benefitting" them selfishly afterall - why want a screaming brat around you? Heck, many adopting, married couples may only be doing it for selfish reasons as they may not be able to have children of their own (low sperm count, problems with the perspective mother etc.), to fulfill selfish desires of wanting a child for the sake of having one, than to give them a loving home.

However as I stated before, a homosexual couple does not have the father and mother figures I spoke about earlier which is what makes the traditional family better than the single parent family or a homosexual family. The idea thats passed from father to son about the 'duty' of the father for the family, the manners from father to son towards the women and so forth - a single parent family or a homosexual family just do not offer this no matter how hard they try and no matter how good intended their intentions are.


It's a case by case scenario, we can not label all housing estate families as incapable, or homosexuals etc.

Oh indeed, i've made the point many times that no system is 100% infallible (including the traditional married family).


That is not evidence, that is speculation. The most disrespectful people I know - and the ones who resent their parents the most - all actually happen to be ones whose parents are still together. The decline in manners, commitment, and duty to the family are far more likely to be because we as a society don't have kids in order to provide for us any more, we have them because we want kids. That's just one factor to it, probably not even the biggest of them, but it's certainly more logical to place blame on societal changes than single parenting which has gone on throughout history. You may in fact note that for most of history fathers have not had anything like an active role in the upbringing of children, something which didn't really become the done thing until the last century or two, yet somehow you overlooked all that and decided that a tried and tested method of rearing is a sensible scapegoat for society's shortcomings in recent generations.

The family shapes society to a great extent. The attitude towards divorce is a prime example of this, whereas many (including youngsters) back in the 1950s and beforehand viewed pregnancy before marriage, divorce and so forth with horror - many now do not because of their personal experiences because we all naturally defend our parents and how we were brought up 'it did me no harm so therefore it isn't a problem' - when it actually is.

The father figure has always been important and its silly to dismiss it, sure it can be adapted to that both parents can now go out and work - but the same values; the mannerisms towards women, the duty you have towards your family in staying together and so forth. It can be seen in young people when they became pregnant many years ago - the boy, knowing his responsibility would instantly offer to marry the pregnant girl because of that sense of duty whereas nowadays its a simple 'she's entitled to benefits and I can visit every weekend or so' - that same child will grow up with those values in most cases.

FlyingJesus
18-07-2011, 11:31 PM
If you're going to ignore fact Dan then you really have no place in a debate. Males throughout the massive majority of human history have NOT had a big role in the rearing of children, especially at a young age. Time did not begin in the 1950s, and Victorian abstinence ideals do not represent the absolute moral height of a working society. You've still shown no evidence of any of your views, you've just blindly attributed the breakdowns of modern society to how many adults are in your house, which is ridiculous enough even without your blatant steering away from the fact that nothing at all evidences your claims.

Ceilidh.
18-07-2011, 11:39 PM
Children need love and support, sexuality has nothing to do with those things.

The Don
19-07-2011, 02:45 PM
Dan if you fear about losing the 'traditonal family' then surely you would argue that parents who are disabled should not have children as a child having to look after the adult does not meet the criteria of said family. Would you agree that disabled parents should be forced to give their children up for adoption?

-:Undertaker:-
19-07-2011, 08:48 PM
If you're going to ignore fact Dan then you really have no place in a debate. Males throughout the massive majority of human history have NOT had a big role in the rearing of children, especially at a young age. Time did not begin in the 1950s, and Victorian abstinence ideals do not represent the absolute moral height of a working society. You've still shown no evidence of any of your views, you've just blindly attributed the breakdowns of modern society to how many adults are in your house, which is ridiculous enough even without your blatant steering away from the fact that nothing at all evidences your claims.

I'm not arguing about history throughout time i'm arguing for the traditional Victorian family which has worked, does still work and still could work rather than the system we have in place now. I have provided evidence why the father and mother roles are needed; the breakdown in manners, a sense of duty to the family and so forth - with the loss of the married traditional 'Victorian' family you loose these things and we have lost these things with an increase in divorce rates not for the sake of the children, but for the sake of convenience between adults who reassure themselves by saying that 'its in the interests of the children' when its infact not. The comparison of attitudes towards sex for example is a major example of this, and i've given a previous example of personal attitudes (from both male and female) now to teenage pregnancy as compared to prior to the 1960s.

Its not about the number of adults in your house, otherwise i'd have no problem with homosexual adoption would I? I have plainly and clearly stated that the loss of the mother role and the father role are the problem and that is why I do not support homosexual adoption just as I do not think a unmarried mother with children is something to be looked upon as a good thing. The breakdown of a family is a bad thing, often which can be unavoided.


..its part of the decline in mannerisms, a decline in faith to your partner, a collapse in commitment, a collapse in the sense of duty as a family man, a sense that the state will provide where the father should

If you wish to discuss any part of these in detail, you'll have to pick them out rather than saying i'm providing nothing here - in many cases i'm repeating myself, as shown with below which I will now reply to.


Dan if you fear about losing the 'traditonal family' then surely you would argue that parents who are disabled should not have children as a child having to look after the adult does not meet the criteria of said family. Would you agree that disabled parents should be forced to give their children up for adoption?

I have already made this distinction but i'll make it again, so in reply to the question no, because that is not the business of the state. It is the business of the state however concerning adoption because those children have been placed in the care of the state and therefore the state should make a good decision on behalf of those children.

FlyingJesus
19-07-2011, 11:55 PM
I'm not arguing about history throughout time i'm arguing for the traditional Victorian family which has worked, does still work and still could work rather than the system we have in place now.

In what terms did it work better? Were the children happier when they were being forced into labour at a young age? Did the terrifying distant father figure in whose presence one might not speak serve to encourage a healthy mental growth?


I have provided evidence why the father and mother roles are needed; the breakdown in manners, a sense of duty to the family and so forth - with the loss of the married traditional 'Victorian' family you loose these things

That is not evidence. That is repetition of an unfounded opinion, and one which I've already combated anyway. Social and societal changes are a far more likely cause of change in those things, not the loss of one parent which even in Victorian times was fairly common due to ill health.


and we have lost these things with an increase in divorce rates not for the sake of the children, but for the sake of convenience between adults who reassure themselves by saying that 'its in the interests of the children' when its infact not.

Again, no evidence. It is agreed almost entirely across the board with regards to mental health experts that a household in which a loveless couple are living is not a good place for children to grow up, yet you blithely ignore this and instead state (again unfounded) opinion as though it were fact.


The comparison of attitudes towards sex for example is a major example of this, and i've given a previous example of personal attitudes (from both male and female) now to teenage pregnancy as compared to prior to the 1960s.

Pretty sure that's almost entirely due to social contracts changing, not because of people getting divorced. Divorce was still a pretty shocking thing right up through the 80s (and remains something that's not exactly brushed off lightly in most cases) so yet again you're not making sense.


If you wish to discuss any part of these in detail, you'll have to pick them out rather than saying i'm providing nothing here - in many cases i'm repeating myself, as shown with below which I will now reply to.

I have done so again and again - yes often without clear reference as to which parts as absolutely nothing you've said to date has had any true backing. Repeating yourself does not equal evidence of a point.

-:Undertaker:-
20-07-2011, 12:19 AM
In what terms did it work better? Were the children happier when they were being forced into labour at a young age? Did the terrifying distant father figure in whose presence one might not speak serve to encourage a healthy mental growth?

Oh come on, we're not even talking here about forced labor. That's scraping the barrel. I haven't said every family was perfect, but we certainly didn't have the breakup of families to the extent that we do now because the values of commitment to your partner, duty to the family and so forth still had standing - standing which is embodied in the traditional family. Next you'll be telling me how children suffered sooty lungs living in the cities, not that that has anything to do with the traditional family and why it works.


That is not evidence. That is repetition of an unfounded opinion, and one which I've already combated anyway. Social and societal changes are a far more likely cause of change in those things, not the loss of one parent which even in Victorian times was fairly common due to ill health.

Of which are caused by the breakdown of family. Take benefits for example, you now have generations who have never worked in the same household. The family shapes and influences us, and the loss of values on issues such as divorce, marriage, abortion, adoption and so forth have all been a result of the breakdown in marriage. If you have a father who divorces his wife (as so many now do) for the issue of usually convenience, then the child is likely not to respect marriage either and will do the exact same leaving more broken homes.

The very fact you cannot see how the loss of values has stemmed largely from the cultural aspect which comes from home is worrying, rather you simply keep saying 'societal changes' - who makes up society? the family and the individual.


Again, no evidence. It is agreed almost entirely across the board with regards to mental health experts that a household in which a loveless couple are living is not a good place for children to grow up, yet you blithely ignore this and instead state (again unfounded) opinion as though it were fact.

Depends what you class as a loveless couple, the bringing up of children depends far more on the stability of the family with the father having his sense of duty to the family despite problems it may have. The same with the mother. When a family breaks, this is lost and cannot be replaced by a new boyfriend every other week, or being carted between homes on the weekends.


Pretty sure that's almost entirely due to social contracts changing, not because of people getting divorced. Divorce was still a pretty shocking thing right up through the 80s (and remains something that's not exactly brushed off lightly in most cases) so yet again you're not making sense.

Because it had not yet been eroded to the extent it has now, which is why I want to stop it at present and perhaps even reverse it. It stems from the cultural revolution in the late 50s and legislation coming in in the late 1960s - from then its got worse and worse as society fell to it (society being the family and the individual) in thinking that its ok to get a divorce, its ok to talk about sex constantly and have it the centre of our lives, its ok to have sex and if you become pregnant you can simply abort/give it up for adoption/the state will look after you and the child.


I have done so again and again - yes often without clear reference as to which parts as absolutely nothing you've said to date has had any true backing. Repeating yourself does not equal evidence of a point.

Sorry but all you keep repeating is 'its societal changes' - ask yourself what society is, then ask yourself what a large part in society is played by the family and the individual, of which society is made up from.

FlyingJesus
20-07-2011, 12:47 AM
Your debate etiquette is appalling. I still see absolutely no facts or anything based on tangible evidence.


Oh come on, we're not even talking here about forced labor. That's scraping the barrel. I haven't said every family was perfect, but we certainly didn't have the breakup of families to the extent that we do now because the values of commitment to your partner, duty to the family and so forth still had standing - standing which is embodied in the traditional family. Next you'll be telling me how children suffered sooty lungs living in the cities, not that that has anything to do with the traditional family and why it works.

I'm not sure what history you've read of the era, but grand houses where papa comes home to kiss his immaculately dressed children in the nursery before strolling off to the kitchen whistling a merry tune were not the norm in the Victorian age. The majority were poor and had children expressedly for labour purposes, as was the necessity, and this is why there was such devotion to the family - if there wasn't, the country would have collapsed. Now there is simply no need for that, as people have children for the purpose of having children, not as a means of income and support in old age. Child labour has everything to do with it for this very simple reason.


the loss of values on issues such as divorce, marriage, abortion, adoption and so forth have all been a result of the breakdown in marriage.

No I'm pretty sure they're a result of society (yes I said it again, ooh spank me) and the government adopting far more liberal values - something you often claim to support. The breakdown of marriages could not have happened without it being allowed, and therefore logically cannot be the starting point for this degeneration.


The very fact you cannot see how the loss of values has stemmed largely from the cultural aspect which comes from home is worrying, rather you simply keep saying 'societal changes' - who makes up society? the family and the individual.

As explained above, you have an illogical starting point. That aside, culture absolutely does not exist purely through the family - you're somehow missing out the arts, entertainment and possibly most importantly, technology. If all of these things were the same as your beloved Victorian fantasy then perhaps families would still work in the same way, but we have advanced from that and have new perspectives, reasonings, and cultural beliefs. Being conservative is one thing, attempting to force unnecessary ideas on people for the sake of outdated theories is another.


Depends what you class as a loveless couple, the bringing up of children depends far more on the stability of the family with the father having his sense of duty to the family despite problems it may have. The same with the mother. When a family breaks, this is lost and cannot be replaced by a new boyfriend every other week, or being carted between homes on the weekends.

Is that so? I'm still waiting for you to produce any facts and evidence for this - by which I don't mean skewed observations that I've already pulled apart.


Sorry but all you keep repeating is 'its societal changes' - ask yourself what society is, then ask yourself what a large part in society is played by the family and the individual, of which society is made up from.

I'm quite aware of what society is, and as you seem to also know this I can't get my head around how you're ignoring its evolution. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the theory of a "hierarchy of needs", but we as a society in this country and in most of the West have changed because we are beyond what we yearned for previously, namely offspring who will provide for us as opposed to the other way around, and that changes the entire family dynamic well past a basic standard model and into something that needs to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis.

Wig44.
20-07-2011, 07:48 PM
I think the simple answer is that there must be a prominent male and female figure in every child's life, whether these are their biological/adoptive parents or friends of two homosexual parents matters not.

Technologic
20-07-2011, 11:25 PM
I think the simple answer is that there must be a prominent male and female figure in every child's life, whether these are their biological/adoptive parents or friends of two homosexual parents matters not.

Plus in any gay relationship theres ALWAYS a dom & a sub no matter what they say

LucyFaye
22-07-2011, 04:49 AM
Personally, I believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual adoption!
Sure there is the possibility they could be bullied in school or miss certain aspects of growing up with a mother/father (whichever they don't have 2 of) But I know some truly amazing people that have been raised by homosexuals.
One of my best friends mother's became a lesbian not long after he was born (and his dad decided to run away completely) so he was raised by his mother and his loving step-mother. And he isn't some reprobate crying about never having a father, he adores both his parents very much and is now studying law to become a lawyer!
Also, I don't know if it's the same anywhere else but in England at least, it's VERY rare now to see a happy long-term married couple that have raised their children together past the age of 18. (For the record, my parents have been happily married for over 22 years) And there are a growing number of single parents out there! Sure it seems that crime has risen and there are alot more problems in people when it comes to.. Intelligence and Grammar shall we say? But that's all about the personalities of the parents and role models they have, not their genders!
If single parents aren't frowned upon to adopt or raise children, then why would TWO parents be a bad thing? Regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
It would be completely and utterly prejudice and ignorant to say that a heterosexual would do a far better job than a homosexual couple! It doesn't matter what gender they are it's all about the person!

AlexOC
22-07-2011, 11:09 PM
Haven't read the debate so dno what's been said but..

My opinion is, I'd rather see two gay parents in a happy relationship raising a child properly, instead of most of the straight parents I see around Manchester! Parenthood isn't about a straight couple, It's about, and only about, raising a child properly and giving it all the opportunities that it deserves in life.

Tom
23-07-2011, 09:17 AM
Reading over the last few posts, this debate has been through a cycle at least 6 times. We've said the same things over and over and it's going nowhere.

We've mentioned they need love and care,
Homosexual couples can bring love and care to a child, just because it's 2 men, what makes that so different to a man and a women (apart from obvious appearance differences)

We've mentioned it will ruin the traditional nuclear family.
Obviously it will, but with it being traditional I think it's out dated ;) More and more gay people are 'born' every day. Some gay people are more caring than mothers and fathers themselves.

(Those 2 are only from what I can remember)

Obviously this is a debate and some posts look like they're becoming an argument. My solid opinion and most other people's in this thread is that Homosexual adoption should be allowed, as there are more pros than cons. As Technologic said


in any gay relationship theres ALWAYS a dom & a sub no matter what they say

This is true, and the with that fact there will always be the mother & father attribute in a child's life.

-:Undertaker:-
24-07-2011, 03:04 AM
Your debate etiquette is appalling. I still see absolutely no facts or anything based on tangible evidence.

Don't you mean yourself? below you've just given me a description of how domestic Victorian life in the larger houses worked, not in terms of the traditional family but in terms of how the children dress and so forth. This is not evidence, this is a sideshow/babble. If you want to debate this seriously, which at least others have been doing so, then you will need to stop painting ridiculous pictures of which have nothing to do with topic at hand.


I'm not sure what history you've read of the era, but grand houses where papa comes home to kiss his immaculately dressed children in the nursery before strolling off to the kitchen whistling a merry tune were not the norm in the Victorian age. The majority were poor and had children expressedly for labour purposes, as was the necessity, and this is why there was such devotion to the family - if there wasn't, the country would have collapsed. Now there is simply no need for that, as people have children for the purpose of having children, not as a means of income and support in old age. Child labour has everything to do with it for this very simple reason.

..which brings me back to my point, there is a devotion to the family which worked and does work in the traditional family. The tone of your argument actually rather suggests that the decline of this is a bad thing which of course it is. The traditional family is superior in this as i've stated time and time again and cannot be replaced by homosexual couples or unmarried mothers for the reasons I have stated time and time again throughout this thread.




No I'm pretty sure they're a result of society (yes I said it again, ooh spank me) and the government adopting far more liberal values - something you often claim to support. The breakdown of marriages could not have happened without it being allowed, and therefore logically cannot be the starting point for this degeneration.

And what is society Tom? society isn't a term that you can simply describe everyone collectively as, society is made from families and individuals - any 'change in society' comes from these components. There has been a change in society indeed, with the erosion of the traditional family which has led to the collapse in morales along with the family itself which is becoming more and more under threat as its 'not needed' as Skynus makes the claim below.

I take you back to the example (again) of a couple who have no children as opposed to a couple who do - who will seperate more likely? the couple without children because they do not have the concerns of the children at hand as they do not have any. A couple with children are likely to stay together for longer/indefinetely because they have children. Therefore the relaxation of divorce laws in the late 1960s led to the increase in the breakdown in the married family which is something that cannot be denied as the figures show it.



As explained above, you have an illogical starting point. That aside, culture absolutely does not exist purely through the family - you're somehow missing out the arts, entertainment and possibly most importantly, technology. If all of these things were the same as your beloved Victorian fantasy then perhaps families would still work in the same way, but we have advanced from that and have new perspectives, reasonings, and cultural beliefs.

Of which are influenced by social attitudes. As i've stated previously, divorce and so forth was looked down upon even into the 1980s as something rather negative and not to be done - the left, with its strangehold on culture has played a part but this in turn has been influenced with those starting points with the first blows being dealt to the married family through legislation.


Being conservative is one thing, attempting to force unnecessary ideas on people for the sake of outdated theories is another.

Haven't suggested any force to be used what-so-ever.


Is that so? I'm still waiting for you to produce any facts and evidence for this - by which I don't mean skewed observations that I've already pulled apart.

My evidence are many children around the country of which i've explained time and time again. Many years ago, the culture of divorce and broken families did not exist therefore there is your evidence. Children left without role models (fathers), children being carted off between homes every weekend or two, a collapse in commitment to a mother of which I gave an example previously that when a girl became pregnant the boy would instantly marry without question, now its either 'lets get it adopted or I can come around every few weeks and pay child benefit'.

Now, do you deny these things go on when they previously did not?


I'm quite aware of what society is, and as you seem to also know this I can't get my head around how you're ignoring its evolution. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the theory of a "hierarchy of needs", but we as a society in this country and in most of the West have changed because we are beyond what we yearned for previously, namely offspring who will provide for us as opposed to the other way around, and that changes the entire family dynamic well past a basic standard model and into something that needs to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis.

So whats the model of family now then? promiscuous sex with multiple lovers on drunken nights out? no commitment to the girl when she does become pregnant because there's no social pressure on you/your father never did so? abortion because a child doesn't matter as a family can simply be avoided with a trip to the local NHS clinic? indeed for many the priorities have changed and certainly not in a good way. Why is this? because its infected the culture, its the same with benefits; grandad, mother and father didn't work so why will I bother?


We've mentioned it will ruin the traditional nuclear family.
Obviously it will, but with it being traditional I think it's out dated ;) More and more gay people are 'born' every day. Some gay people are more caring than mothers and fathers themselves.

Really? so before we consign this 'outdated' insitution, which worked, to the dustbin of history - maybe we should ask ourselves the question; is family life for millions of children around this country better now or was it better in say 1950 or 1920? I think the answer is blindingly clear, and thats why I think that this 'outdated' idea which works is rather a valuable, don't you?

FlyingJesus
24-07-2011, 01:02 PM
Don't you mean yourself? below you've just given me a description of how domestic Victorian life in the larger houses worked, not in terms of the traditional family but in terms of how the children dress and so forth. This is not evidence, this is a sideshow/babble. If you want to debate this seriously, which at least others have been doing so, then you will need to stop painting ridiculous pictures of which have nothing to do with topic at hand.

This "painting" I gave you was in mockery of what you seem to believe was the norm in those times, which is clearly (read a history book some time) not the case. The point of it is that life was not fantastic for children then as they existed primarily as caregivers - something that no longer is the case.


..which brings me back to my point, there is a devotion to the family which worked and does work in the traditional family. The tone of your argument actually rather suggests that the decline of this is a bad thing which of course it is. The traditional family is superior in this as i've stated time and time again and cannot be replaced by homosexual couples or unmarried mothers for the reasons I have stated time and time again throughout this thread.

You're right, you have stated your opinions time and time again, but what I wanted was for you to back it up with more than "der r bad kidz now" as though there never have been before in history. The traditional family is a superior model in a society that requires the new generation to support one the older one[s], which is as is clear to see not how we now work, and is therefore no longer a required model. You are supporting family for the sake of family when we as a whole have evolved well past that.


And what is society Tom? society isn't a term that you can simply describe everyone collectively as, society is made from families and individuals - any 'change in society' comes from these components. There has been a change in society indeed, with the erosion of the traditional family which has led to the collapse in morales along with the family itself which is becoming more and more under threat as its 'not needed' as Skynus makes the claim below.

Society is not a collective? Are you serious? And yes morals change over time, this is not necessarily a bad thing it's just a difference in needs, as I explained in my previous post. Let me ask you a question that I don't think has had an answer so far - for what reason do you believe the traditional family ought to be maintained? You keep saying it's the best model, but best at what? When answering please try to remember that morals are a personal thing and certainly not something that ought to be forced by negative freedoms.


I take you back to the example (again) of a couple who have no children as opposed to a couple who do - who will seperate more likely? the couple without children because they do not have the concerns of the children at hand as they do not have any. A couple with children are likely to stay together for longer/indefinetely because they have children. Therefore the relaxation of divorce laws in the late 1960s led to the increase in the breakdown in the married family which is something that cannot be denied as the figures show it.

I'm not going to argue on this point as I don't have the figures to do so, but if you do can you please show your source for this claim as I've never before heard that non-parents are more likely to divorce than a couple with children.


Of which are influenced by social attitudes. As i've stated previously, divorce and so forth was looked down upon even into the 1980s as something rather negative and not to be done - the left, with its strangehold on culture has played a part but this in turn has been influenced with those starting points with the first blows being dealt to the married family through legislation.

The arts, entertainment, and technology are influenced by people getting divorced? If what you're bizarrely claiming is true then considering the massive leaps and bounds we've come along in those fields (especially medical/technological) then maybe everyone ought to get divorced as it seems to be working for us.


My evidence are many children around the country of which i've explained time and time again. Many years ago, the culture of divorce and broken families did not exist therefore there is your evidence.

I must ask what damage you think this has done to anything other than the traditional family model itself. People as a whole are no more in suffering from ill health or dissatisfaction with their lot in life than in the past - we probably have improved on those counts in fact - so your argument seems to really be about keeping things the same for the sake of having them the same, or as I said, family for the sake of family.


Children left without role models (fathers), children being carted off between homes every weekend or two, a collapse in commitment to a mother of which I gave an example previously that when a girl became pregnant the boy would instantly marry without question, now its either 'lets get it adopted or I can come around every few weeks and pay child benefit'.

Now, do you deny these things go on when they previously did not?

I absolutely don't deny that those things happen more often now, but I do deny that it's particularly damaging. The outside view of children being as you say "carted off" among parents seems to have connotations that don't really exist. I've never known anyone to feel like they're unwanted or overly confused about such arrangements - moreso however with friends who have both parents at home yet one (or in a couple of cases, both) who seems to want nothing to do with them. Again, it's change but not necessarily for the worse.


So whats the model of family now then? promiscuous sex with multiple lovers on drunken nights out? no commitment to the girl when she does become pregnant because there's no social pressure on you/your father never did so? abortion because a child doesn't matter as a family can simply be avoided with a trip to the local NHS clinic?

To a degree, yup. Of course many do still get married and have kids the old way, and fair enough if that's how you want to do it, but people are more independant now Dan and we do not always require the same rigid family structure that has previously existed. You are now arguing on a purely personal ethics basis, which has no place in this debate. Often our needs define us, and I don't see why there's a problem with that.


Really? so before we consign this 'outdated' insitution, which worked, to the dustbin of history - maybe we should ask ourselves the question; is family life for millions of children around this country better now or was it better in say 1950 or 1920? I think the answer is blindingly clear, and thats why I think that this 'outdated' idea which works is rather a valuable, don't you?

The answer is blindingly clear you're right - yes. Life "sucks" for kids now if they don't have the latest games, I'd say that's a pretty good life as opposed to growing up in absolute fear and being forced into a life you may not really want to lead.

Judas
24-07-2011, 02:29 PM
gay is the way forward

*REMOVED*

Edited by Infectious (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not make inappropriate posts!

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!