Same-sex marriage

[Webbo]

surely a kid with 2 dads can say to a bully " my two dads could beat your dad"

Or my dad could shag your dad.

[skinnydipper]

But don't you think that a child needs a male and a female parent? Surely we learn/experience different things from our mothers than we do form our dads?

Not necessarily.

There are plenty of single parent families that do just fine

You might have a case of a father looking after a teenage daughter who has to deal with the onset of periods but if the girl is uncomfortable discussing this with the father there will probably be an aunt or cousin available for advice

I think that there are advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios. Being brought up by loving parents in a stable relationship is obviously of benefit but a child of parents in an emotionally abusive and/or violent relationship will inevitably be harmed and so those children are likely to benefit if the parents seperate.

It's about the quality of care rather than gender IMO

[Zingari]

Or my dad could shag your dad.

or my two dads could spit roast your dad

[Captain...]

But don't you think that a child needs a male and a female parent? Surely we learn/experience different things from our mothers than we do form our dads?

I don't think it needs a female parent, single fathers are perfectly capable of raising a child, but yes a child is generally more balanced with a strong male and female role model in their lives, interesting that we always seem to default to the 2 dads adopting, but this doesn't necessarily need to come from the Mother and not all mothers are suitable female role models. The femal influence could come from a grandmother or a close friend or a nanny. They could also help deal with the birds and bees style questions.

Just out of interest how would you feel about a gay couple and a lesbian couple living together and raising naturally conceived children? They would have 2 mummies and 2 daddies.

[Babylon]

Nope, the most suitable and the one that can provide the best life for the baby, it is not just about wealth, but I think wealthy, time rich gay parents with a good support network of friends and family would provide a better quality of life for a child than straight parents who are on JSA or have no real job security, or who both have to work full time to make ends meet, or who don't have a support network, or who live in an area with a high crime rate and a strong gang culture.

But are people like that on the list though? People who smoke or have weight problems don't make the cut quite often, so it's unlikely someone on JSA will. The people who get accepted and make the waiting lists are more often than not decent hard working folk, with your ordinary background and usual support networks. I would bet there are many professional couples on there who aren't Fred and Rose and aren't living in a ghetto or on JSA.

[Saxondale]

I honestly can't make up my mind on the adoption thing.

In a ideal world I think it's not right. I think a child should be brought up in a heterosexual family as that is the 'natural' way.

I have no problem with homosexuality at all, but I do consider it a form of sexual deviancy. A huge amount of our personality is formed from our childhood home environment and I think that a child living with a homosexual couple is going to be a lot more likely to end up gay themselves. I think this puts the child at a disadvantage as they are not gaining an instinctive understanding of conjugal roles and other subtleties relating to the dynamics of adult relationships. After all, heterosexuality is the 'default' setting for all living organisms.

But, on the other hand, if a homosexual couple are keen to bring up children in a caring environment, that can't be a bad thing.

I just don't know!

[Corky]

I'd rather see kids get a decent upbringing.

When you adopt you want the children. The kids may get some teasing at school but at least when they get home they will be cared for.

[skinnydipper]

But are people like that on the list though? People who smoke or have weight problems don't make the cut quite often, so it's unlikely someone on JSA will. The people who get accepted and make the waiting lists are more often than not decent hard working folk, with your ordinary background and usual support networks. I would bet there are many professional couples on there who aren't Fred and Rose and aren't living in a ghetto or on JSA.

And if that list includes decent, hard working couples of whatever sexual orientation shouldn't decision making be based on ability/suitability abnd not sexuality ?

[Webbo]

I don't think it needs a female parent, single fathers are perfectly capable of raising a child, but yes a child is generally more balanced with a strong male and female role model in their lives, interesting that we always seem to default to the 2 dads adopting, but this doesn't necessarily need to come from the Mother and not all mothers are suitable female role models. The femal influence could come from a grandmother or a close friend or a nanny. They could also help deal with the birds and bees style questions.

Just out of interest how would you feel about a gay couple and a lesbian couple living together and raising naturally conceived children? They would have 2 mummies and 2 daddies.

In answer to you and the others who have disagreed.Not all single parents are perfectly capable as we all know. My answer was in response that children up for adoption should have what they need, but the pro gay adoption lobby seem to have decided that children don't need anything which doesn't suit their argument.

I appreciate that there are single parents and that there are same sex couples raising their own children but that's life, these things happen. What we are talking about is the state handing over children to parents who will have the major influence on the rest of their lives. The most important thing is the needs of the children, not political correctness.

[Babylon]

I don't think that they should be ahead but nor do I think that they should be behind

The sole criteria should be the ability to provide for the physical, emotional and educational needs of the child, predominantly throughout childhood but also beyond

As I understood your original concern it was that a child of a same sex couple might be bullied. You might be right but so might a child who is overweight, wears glasses, has a different accent etc

It can't be right to give in to the meatheads or the bully where in all respects a same sex couple can provide a stable, secure and loving home

I think that you've got to consider prospective adopters as individuals and assess their positives and negatives as such

So it's about finding parents that are best equipped to meet a child's needs as opposed to finding parents equipped with a particular match of genitalia

Edit

Within any matching process there will be variations in the abilities to meet identified needs (e.g health, relationship stability, support networks) . It's a rare situation in which there would be nothing to choose between two or more sets of prospective adopters. We disagree in that you think that sexual orientation is one of the determinative factors in the decision making process whereas I do not.

Firstly my original point is one of many, not the only argument.

I understand and agree with all of it, the point i'm trying to make is that people on the waiting lists have already met all the criteria, they are already classed as suitable. They have been looked at and it's been decided they are able to provide, support and look after a child. If the options are gay couple of Wayne and Waynetta Slob, then you go for the first option every time. But they wouldn't have made the cut long before that.

The ideal scenario should always be for a mixed relationship couple to be a priority.

[Babylon]

And if that list includes decent, hard working couples of whatever sexual orientation shouldn't decision making be based on ability/suitability abnd not sexuality ?

No. If you had a respectable mixed couple and a respectable gay couple, i'm afraid the mixed couple should get priority in my view. Giving a child a mother & father / male & female role model should be very high on the list of any set of criteria.

[ajthefox]

Firstly my original point is one of many, not the only argument.

I understand and agree with all of it, the point i'm trying to make is that people on the waiting lists have already met all the criteria, they are already classed as suitable. They have been looked at and it's been decided they are able to provide, support and look after a child. If the options are gay couple of Wayne and Waynetta Slob, then you go for the first option every time. But they wouldn't have made the cut long before that.

The ideal scenario should always be for a mixed relationship couple to be a priority.

I'm not going to say too much on the matter but the outlined statement I think is the best way of summing up my feelings on this.

It should go without saying that two homosexuals can get married if they want, but the issue of adoption isn't as clean cut as that.

[davieG]

Exactly, imagine how many more there would be if there was no certificate, at what point is somebody entitled to your possessions, if you have been dating for 10 weeks, 10 months, 10 years? What about in the case of pensions, I am not sure how it works now, but my Gran earns her pension based largely on the contribution of her husband to the state, because she only worked part-time and so didn't contribute much.

Why would there be more? They'll either be disagreements or not a certificate wont change people's views on whether the CD collection should be theirs or not. As far as I understand women no longer have to rely on their husbands contribution and there are other options available for low income people. Even if there isn't surely a system, marriage that continues to make a woman subservient and dependant on a husband is something we should be eradicating.

The whole history of Marriage is based on the woman being subservient to the man and serving his needs often at the expense of their needs and aspirations.

[skinnydipper]

Firstly my original point is one of many, not the only argument.

I understand and agree with all of it, the point i'm trying to make is that people on the waiting lists have already met all the criteria, they are already classed as suitable. They have been looked at and it's been decided they are able to provide, support and look after a child. If the options are gay couple of Wayne and Waynetta Slob, then you go for the first option every time. But they wouldn't have made the cut long before that.

The ideal scenario should always be for a mixed relationship couple to be a priority.

I understand that you are saying all things equal straight couple trump gay couple. I disagree but in any event it is rarely so that all things are equal.

The fact that a couple are approved as suitable does not make them suitable to adopt any child.

Not many children are adopted under the age of 1 and from toddler age upwards many children who are available for adoption will have experienced sub-standard care which may include significant abuse. This will often affect their functioning and limits the pool of available adopters

Variables are children with specific therapeutic and physical, needs, behavioural problems e.g ADHD, contact needs to siblings placed elsewhere and with parents (something which prospective adopters have differing views upon).

Such children will often require a higher than usual standard of care and there will be differences in the suitability of candidates

The matching process is an important and skilled piece of work conducted by specialist social workers. The specific needs of the individual child have to be considered with the profile of proposed carers. It isn't one size fits all. That's why there is virtually always a preferred match.

It is also not uncommon for couples who have been approved as adopters to withdraw from consideration for a particular placement once they learn more of the child.

I'd be interested to know your views if a same sex couple were a bit better matched than a heterosexual couple. My guess is that you would stoll plump for Mr and Mrs rather than Mr and Mr (or Ms and Ms)

That said I understand your view and appreciate that I will not change that. Likewise, I think you understand (though disagree) with mine.

[Finnegan]

I always had it in my head that the world was crying out for suitable adopters? Surely there are more kids in the system than there are people clamouring to adopt one?

[Leicfox]

A lot of lesbian couples I know already have kids from being straight then turning gay, so if then they wanted a child together would that change anyone's views on them adopting?

[Saxondale]

EDIT

[Babylon]

I always had it in my head that the world was crying out for suitable adopters? Surely there are more kids in the system than there are people clamouring to adopt one?

It's crying out for adopters of older children. Most people want the babies though which is more what i'm talking about.

I don't see why anyone would not wish a child a home with a gay couple if the other option was only a care home.

[Captain...]

I always had it in my head that the world was crying out for suitable adopters? Surely there are more kids in the system than there are people clamouring to adopt one?

I also thought, this, but maybe I am wrong, because I also know there is an adoption waiting list too.

@Babylon, if you give me the choice between 2 equally matched couples in every way and both had been waiting the exact same amount of time to adopt, the only difference is one is same sex and one is opposite sex and I had to decide which family to give one child to, then I would chose the heterosexual couple. In that way I agree with you, but under any other circumstances I would have to judge it on who provides the best quality of life for the child, or by who is next on the waiting list, in the case where situations are equal..

[Gold Coast Fox]

I voted no because I personally don't think it is right. Also, if a person really wants a child (ie Elton John), he should have married of woman. I don't think God intended on the same sex to be together, hence why you can have your own children if you marry the same gender.

By that logic God never intended on us flying, hence why we don't have wings, so I don't think using God is a fair reason to be begrudge me and others the right to marriage.

[Captain...]

I honestly can't make up my mind on the adoption thing.

In a ideal world I think it's not right. I think a child should be brought up in a heterosexual family as that is the 'natural' way.

I have no problem with homosexuality at all, but I do consider it a form of sexual deviancy. A huge amount of our personality is formed from our childhood home environment and I think that a child living with a homosexual couple is going to be a lot more likely to end up gay themselves. I think this puts the child at a disadvantage as they are not gaining an instinctive understanding of conjugal roles and other subtleties relating to the dynamics of adult relationships. After all, heterosexuality is the 'default' setting for all living organisms.

But, on the other hand, if a homosexual couple are keen to bring up children in a caring environment, that can't be a bad thing.

I just don't know!

Why do you consider it a form of sexual deviancy? Homosexuality is the love of someone of the same gender and has nothing to do with sex, sodomy or buggery could be considered sexual deviancy but this not purely the domain of gay men.

[Saxondale]

Why do you consider it a form of sexual deviancy?

Because heterosexuality is the default setting, therefore homosexuality is a deviation from the norm.

Not saying it's a bad thing, I strongly believe that people should be free to do what they want when it comes to things like this.

[Captain...]

By that logic God never intended on us flying, hence why we don't have wings, so I don't think using God is a fair reason to be begrudge me and others the right to marriage.

But isn't the main difference between a civil partnership and marriage that civil partnerships are not recognised by god, or any other religion so it is relevant to consider god.

[21st Century Fox]

Has there been a reasoned argument that doesn't mention God yet?

[Captain...]

Because heterosexuality is the default setting, therefore homosexuality is a deviation from the norm.

Not saying it's a bad thing, I strongly believe that people should be free to do what they want when it comes to things like this.

I understand the deviancy, I just don't agree that it is right to label it as sexual deviancy, anal sex, oral sex, dutch rudders, are acts of sexual deviancy but don't think it is right to label someone a sexual deviant because they are gay.