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

[FlyingJesus]

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]

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]

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:-]

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]

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]

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:-]

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]

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:-]

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;



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]

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 ...