Wasyls Pec Deck Posted 25 January 2007 Posted 25 January 2007 At school, and growing up the poor kid would get hell, its a cruel world out there, so no...
Head Honcho Posted 25 January 2007 Author Posted 25 January 2007 I just don't think a couple of mincers are the right type of people to bring up a child! Call me ignorant but thats my view and by choosing to be gay you have excluded yourself from having a family.
Rincewind Posted 25 January 2007 Posted 25 January 2007 It depends on the couple. They may have already been married/partners/parents already so could have brought up children already. The adoption agencies DO think of the child and would not place them with a couple who they thought could not give them the love or caring they need. There are a lot of 'normal' parents who lack the know how when it comes to raising children. They let them run wild on the streets and take no interest in their education. The same questions and worries were being expressed a few years ago over mixed race marriages. 'Think of the kids being bullied for being half cast' Nowadays it is accepted and nobody blinks an eye except for the extreme bigots. I notice that the first few replies were a definate no and later on the yeses appeaed. It seems the 'nays' were a gut reaction and the 'ayes' had time to think. It is not bullies at school the couple should be wary of but neighbours and small groups of people who get together and decide that the couple are unfit to be parents even though they mabe have never met them or visited their home to see for themselves.
Finnegan Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 At school, and growing up the poor kid would get hell, its a cruel world out there, so no... Everyone's just parroting this excuse off one after the other. I can safely say that, with the rare occasion of my actually telling them, no one at my school besides my mates knew who my parents were and I know nothing about 90% of the kids' parents I was at school with. It's just a fooking ludicrous argument for homophobe bigots who don't ACTUALLY have an opinion on the issue other than ", gays r sik."
Daggers Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Everyone's just parroting this excuse off one after the other. I can safely say that, with the rare occasion of my actually telling them, no one at my school besides my mates knew who my parents were and I know nothing about 90% of the kids' parents I was at school with. It's just a fooking ludicrous argument for homophobe bigots who don't ACTUALLY have an opinion on the issue other than ", gays r sik." I'm wondering whether to change the poll questions to: Are you a homophobic bigot? Yes No Too thick to think
Thracian Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 It's so good that everyone is thinking of the children. That's right, being raised by a loving same sex couple would definitely open the child up to targeted abuse from school bullies and obviously this should be the primary concern when deciding whether or not to leave children in care or place them with welcoming families of whatever orientation. Consequently, it should be written into adoption laws that children should also be prevented of being allowed into families where they may influence the child to: study a musical instrument wear glasses look a bit different do their homework have a hairstyle different to that of the school bullies wear shoes that are too clean/new/expensive or a hundred other shite reasons Yes sir, no bigoted ignorance at play here - no sir. Everyone has the concerns of the child at heart and thinks that protecting them from bullies is the best course of action. Of course, some people would say that bullies should no be tolerated and that everyone has a duty to stand up to them...that we should accept people for who they are not question what they are. Some people would say that leaving a child in care because of stupid homophobic attitudes based on ignorance are spouted by people that would be better off slamming their heads in doors. Some people would say that, but I wouldn't dare...considering there's so many of you that have voted 'no' so far. ****s sake! Do you seriously think a child is better served by remaining in care? You can not have ever been in care. Any of you. What children need in love and consistency and it is blinkered attitudes like this that deny them that happiness. Don't cover your bigotry with justification that "I am thinking of the child" because all it screams is "I am full of shit!" Spoken like a practised angry activist. Anyone who cannot eloquently reason against your views is a stupid, ignorant, homophobic, bigot. Well I could argue lots but I'm not going to bother. It's an excellent question but there's not an easy answer. Even if you try to pretend there is.
Rincewind Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 It's not an easy answer for some people because they think all gays go around shaking limp wrists and saying 'hello ducky' How can anyone say any parent is capable of bringing children up if they do not know the person in question, I based my reply on trying to have an open mind. I though Dave put forward a good argument. So far the main reason against is bullying at school. There will be bullies who will find any excuse to bully. It is they that probably come from an unstable and unhappy family life. Maybe the question should be asked 'Are parents that breed bullies fit to be parents?' I'm waiting for the 'It's against God's wishes' argument to be put forward.
Daggers Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Spoken like a practised angry activist. Anyone who cannot eloquently reason against your views is a stupid, ignorant, homophobic, bigot. Well I could argue lots but I'm not going to bother. It's an excellent question but there's not an easy answer. Even if you try to pretend there is. Yea...RIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT So your point was? Err... **** me! There wasn't one. Again. What a surprise...
stez Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 I just don't think a couple of mincers are the right type of people to bring up a child! Call me ignorant but thats my view and by choosing to be gay you have excluded yourself from having a family. i'm not to sure how many acctually choose to be gay.
Lemon Harpic Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 I'm waiting for the 'It's against God's wishes' argument to be put forward. It's against God's wishes. That's why I voted 'yes'.
Zingari Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 if somehow {all other cosiderations being equal) i had the choice to either put a child with a heterosexual couple or a gay couple , i would choose the former , so i suppose i must be homophobic to a certain degree
cisono Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 It's so good that everyone is thinking of the children. ... I guess your post is slightly sarchastic. From a personal viewpoint, I am glad I was raised by a heterosexual (and married) couple. Even so, I remember feeling scared whenever my parents had an argument (not that this was often, but I was a sensitive child and I still recall a few of them). Somehow, that setup should in theory give a little more "stability" to the household, or that is the intention anyway... There is currently a huge row in Italy over whether gay people should be given the same rights as non-gay people, particularly with regards to marriage and adoption. The Catholic Church is strongly against it because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman and have the aim of having children - so much so that the marriage of couples that undertake it with the agreement of having no children is technically null (from a religious viewpoint!). And of course same-sex couples cannot have children of their own... Not sure where I am going with this post, but I wanted to share the above It's against God's wishes.That's why I voted 'yes'. I guess the above could be summarised as your first sentence here. But no, that is not why I voted 'yes'
Head Honcho Posted 26 January 2007 Author Posted 26 January 2007 i'm not to sure how many acctuallt choose to be gay. I think the jury is still out on whether your born gay or not but I personally believe that for most people it's a choice they make.
Janx Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Allen, can I ask if noone already has... why you felt the need to do this thread... somewhat inflammatory subject and bound to get a controversial debate I guess. SO why all the the homophobia, gay men are people, people have the need to nurture and love, there are children that need love...simple equation... I have a colleague in my business... a gay man, who is looking to adopt ... a perfect gent as is his partner, incredibly well mannered, brilliant sense of humour, totally well balanced, well adjusted with a massive amount of love, nice home, strong family ethics, and will bring the child up right..... the case against? erm well the kid might get bullied and that! I think that says more about the state of our biggotted homophobic country and the way that "straight" people bring up their horrible little sprogs of offspring... trust me there would be a LOT less hatred in children if they were shown more love. Your arguements stink you set of "queerbashing tw@s"!!!
James. Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 My preference would be for a man and woman as I believe this gives the child a better balance however I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt if they fulfil the obvious criteria. Bullying is an issue unfortunately. Playgrounds can be savage places however if there was more discussion of same sex adoption through open minded debate maybe next generation's children will be a more accepting group.
Lord Nibblington Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 There are some straight people/couples who make horrible parents. There are some gay people/couples who make horrible parents. There are some straight people/couples who make good parents. There are some gay people/couples who make good parents And so on, and so forth. The sexual orientation really isn't relevant to being a good parent. Oh, and I voted for yes.
MC Prussian Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Hard to tell. I think a child needs a woman for a proper upbringing. Tend to a "No" here.
The People's Hero Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 I personally have no comment to make.
MC Prussian Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 I personally have no comment to make. Which is also a statement. Hello to you, sir.
Leicfox Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Yes on the grounds its only children from Malawi, so they can be like there idol.
Janx Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Hard to tell. I think a child needs a woman for a proper upbringing. Tend to a "No" here. Alex, you need to qualify that surely? Why for gods sake... what is it that a woman does to a child that a man cant ...do you mean the tender soft nature? the fact that they are better at cooking and cleaning or putting cream on scraped knees or talking about periods with daughters... again SEX IS IRRELEVANT!
Janx Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 I personally have no comment to make. what about your boyfriend?
Janx Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Fathers For Justice. Whats that got to do with the price of fish? thats just three words... what do you mean?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.