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

[Ceilidh.]

Children need love and support, sexuality has nothing to do with those things.

[The Don]

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:-]

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]

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:-]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.