Is Homosexual Adoption Right? (ENDS 24/7/11)

[GommeInc]

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 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]

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:-]

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]

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:-]

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]

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]

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]

Children are evil buggars 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:-]

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]

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.