just watched a trailer about a gay guy who was fed of being gay(& the life!!). he wanted to have a nuclear family i.e wife & children & decided to try changing to being straight.

if being gay was a lifestyle choice would it be fair to allow those sex couples to adopt, or is their sexuality not important.?

(their is no inference that they would be any worse or better than other couples)

hmmm...tough one.

i have nothing against gay people / couples but i dunno...i dont think i would like them to be able to bring up a child....i dont have any wise wisdom or points to make...i guess im just brainwashed into beliveing that a child needs a father figure (to shout) and a mother figure (to mother...! :) )

I personally wouldn't want to adopt, but if other people do I think they should let them, having a gay parent is not going to "turn" the children gay.

When you consider how many children are brought-up by single parents, having two mums or two dads wouldn't be a problem.

having a gay parent is not going to "turn" the children gay

Correct. I can't see my daughter turning out gay somehow.

I can not think of an arugment for why a gay couple can't adopt.

It will be just as complex for a gay couple as a hetrosexual couple. They will have to go through the same procedures which are pretty tough and as long as they can love and raise a child into society then job well done.

There are so many kids out there in need of loving homes.

If a gay couple can provide a loving and nurturing home for a child in desperate need, then who are we to stop them?

Originally posted by samc
I can not think of an arugment for why a gay couple can't adopt.


Homophobia seems to be the only problem stopping gay people being allowed to adopt.

Originally posted by MTheo
hmmm...tough one.

i have nothing against gay people / couples but i dunno...i dont think i would like them to be able to bring up a child....i dont have any wise wisdom or points to make...i guess im just brainwashed into beliveing that a child needs a father figure (to shout) and a mother figure (to mother...! :) )

we 'let' single parents bring up a child though, so how could this be anyworse?

No. I am sure gay couples would have no problem bringing up children but i just think that it would be too much for the child to handle. Can you imagine the abuse the kid would get at school when he realises his/her homelife is different to everyone else's. And dont you think it might mess the kids head up a bit. Maybe - maybe not. No homophobic rant please just an idea.

Agree with you lucky_13
it's the grief the child would get from other kids at school that could be the problem.
Kids get bullied for the most trivial things, having two 'mums' or two 'dads' would certainly mean hassle at the very least for them.

I don't they would get any more grief than they would for being an orphan or only having a single parent.

well as i heard someone on the tv joke that insted of my dad will beat your dad up it will be my dad will **** your dad.

Originally posted by f_g
well as i heard someone on the tv joke that insted of my dad will beat your dad up it will be my dad will **** your dad.

Is Jim Davison still on TV ?

I think they SHOULD be allowed to adopt, many gay couples can offer needy children a loving, secure and stable upbringing!

I do have difficulty with gay men using their sperm via surrogate mothers etc to produce children that are genetically theirs.

I just think that really can damage a child knowing that one parent has a genetic link but the other just did it as a favour or for financial reward!

IMO give the abandoned/orphaned children a chance!

:)

Kids get teased and picked on for all sorts of stuff.

But if a child has a happy homelife with parents/relations/friends who have the understanding to foresee these possible issues and be supportive then the child will be able to grow up and handle it. Yes it will hurt at times but that is growing up and life. It is very rare to find someone who had nothing to be 'picked' on about or had issues to deal with.

Just because others are ignorant doesn't mean that a child has to miss out on a loving family. A gay couple adopting may not fit the picture of an ideal family in our society. But hell of a better option than a depressing childrens home or varied foster homes for the next 18 yrs.

Originally posted by samc
Kids get teased and picked on for all sorts of stuff.

But if a child has a happy homelife with parents/relations/friends who have the understanding to foresee these possible issues and be supportive then the child will be able to grow up and handle it. Yes it will hurt at times but that is growing up and life. It is very rare to find someone who had nothing to be 'picked' on about or had issues to deal with.

Just because others are ignorant doesn't mean that a child has to miss out on a loving family. A gay couple adopting may not fit the picture of an ideal family in our society. But hell of a better option than a depressing childrens home or varied foster homes for the next 18 yrs.

I have nothing to add to this. Well done samc, what a well written and clearly argued post :thumbsup:

Gay people cannot have children - they know this when they decide to be gay. Therefore,why try and get a kid via adoption? Do you think some gays wish to adopt as a kind of 'status symbol'? As if to say, "we are normal and an do normal things"

Originally posted by Lucky_13
they know this when they decide to be gay

WHAT? Must have missed it when I made that decision... :loopy:

Absolutely!

Really we should be more worried about parents who instill in their children homophobic/racist/sexist views with which to bully other kids rather than gay couples who adopt...

Originally posted by Lucky_13
Do you think some gays wish to adopt as a kind of 'status symbol'? As if to say, "we are normal and an do normal things"

No, not at all.

Originally posted by willman
just watched a trailer about a gay guy who was fed of being gay(& the life!!). he wanted to have a nuclear family i.e wife & children & decided to try changing to being straight.

if being gay was a lifestyle choice would it be fair to allow those sex couples to adopt, or is their sexuality not important.?

(their is no inference that they would be any worse or better than other couples)

How can someone just choose to be gay/straight?

Originally posted by Lucky_13
Gay people cannot have children - they know this when they decide to be gay. Therefore,why try and get a kid via adoption? Do you think some gays wish to adopt as a kind of 'status symbol'? As if to say, "we are normal and an do normal things"

it's not a lifestyle choice.

Anyway, your rather simple argument could be applied to a heterosexual couple as well.

Originally posted by Lucky_13
Gay people cannot have children - they know this when they decide to be gay. Therefore,why try and get a kid via adoption? Do you think some gays wish to adopt as a kind of 'status symbol'? As if to say, "we are normal and an do normal things"

oooh where to start :)

Decide to be Gay ?

I do not believe you decide to be gay. You either are or you aren't. It's predetermined for you and you can do bugger all about it.

But maybe I have yet to have my 'decide to gay or hetro day'. If tomorrow morning when I get up and want to pull on a pair of dungarees and get my hair cropped short and snog the postlady it will be the day I decide to be a lesbian.

Status Symbol ?
So wanting to share your life through thick and thin with a child. Provide, nuture, teach, clean up vomit is a status thing? There is abit more to having a child in your life than that. I think the adoption agencies are pretty sussed..

Normal
What is your definition of normal.

Gosh I am in rant mode this afternoon. :o

no idea it's on tv tonight. the guy is gay but was single & fed up, he "wanted a normal family with a wife & family" (his words). thats as much as i can tell you.

is it not possible then to make lifestyle choice based on homo or hetero sexual tendencies. or is Anne Heche not normal??

response to ian mitchell - some people are posting quick today.

actually there appears to be both genetic and an environmental factors involved in determining sexuality. But a choice it certainly isn't.

Originally posted by Lucky_13
Gay people cannot have children - they know this when they decide to be gay.

Shut up!!! Did you "decide" whether to be gay or straight? No, didn't think so. There has been loads of research done (will try and find a link) that shows that nature over-rides nurture, therefore lifestyle, childhood, personality etc. has no bearing on sexuality.

Anyway, back on topic. Yes they should be allowed to adopt. Do children who's parents have re-married get bullied about having "two mums" or "two dads"? NO!! As chickmonk says, people who feel anger and disgust about this should concentrate their emotions on themselves for their homophobic views. :rant:

Originally posted by Lucky_13
Gay people cannot have children - they know this when they decide to be gay. Therefore,why try and get a kid via adoption? Do you think some gays wish to adopt as a kind of 'status symbol'? As if to say, "we are normal and an do normal things"

Eh? :loopy:

You write: "gay people cannot have children". Neither can many straight couples, but instead of allowing natural selection to put a halt to their dreams too, we help them with IVF.

You write: "when they decide to be gay." I'm not gay, but from what I've heard, it's not that simple. You make it sound like choosing between strawberry and chocolete flavoured icecream.

You write: "Why try and get a kid". Why shouldn't they? I assume that being gay doesn't affect maternal or paternal instincts.

Finally, your opinion that gay people chose to adpot as a status symbol is incredibly homophobic, and can also (as was point out by someone else on this thread), be applied to straight couples.

What strange and misguided views to hold Lucky :loopy:

Originally posted by JBee
Eh? :loopy:

You write: "gay people cannot have children". Neither can many straight couples, but instead of allowing natural selection to put a halt to their dreams too, we help them with IVF.

You write: "when they decide to be gay." I'm not gay, but from what I've heard, it's not that simple. You make it sound like choosing between strawberry and chocolete flavoured icecream.

You write: "Why try and get a kid". Why shouldn't they? I assume that being gay doesn't affect maternal or paternal instincts.

Finally, your opinion that gay people chose to adoot as a status symbol is incredibly homophobic, and can also (as was point out by someone else on this thread), be applied to straight couples.

What strange and misguided views to hold Lucky :loopy:

Not the link I was looking for but this is an interesting site discussing the scientific, social, political and religious implications of research into the origins of sexual identity.

"Gay Gene" (http://members.aol.com/gaygene/)

Not intended to be homophobic so my apoligies if offence was caused. But people do have kids as a status symbol ie if people want their children to be mixed race. I was hoping this could be a good discussion but as usual it has turned into a rant as my 'homophobic' comments have wound you up. apologies again

Originally posted by Lucky_13
Not intended to be homophobic so my apoligies if offence was caused. But people do have kids as a status symbol ie if people want their children to be mixed race. I was hoping this could be a good discussion but as usual it has turned into a rant as my 'homophobic' comments have wound you up. apologies again

If you had worded it like you just have no-one would have pounced on you.

Apologies in return if I caused offence - my comments weren't aimed at you - more at the minority of parents who teach their children that certain things are wrong and that nothing other than heterosexuality is "normal" or "right".

Originally posted by Lucky_13
people do have kids as a status symbol ie if people want their children to be mixed race.

What!!!! this is as bad as your first post.

You think people fall in love with people of a different ethnicity as a status symbol?????

what s the point in apologising all the time - surely people are entitled to am opininon in how they bring up their children & how they educate them.
so as long as its a valid opininon just post away - within the huidelines of the forum obviously.

in this day & age the influence of parents is restricted anyway, they see more tv images than parental advice.

however that wasn't the point of the topic to be homophobic or not.

sorry if i offended anyone(lol)

IMO as long as 2 Parents can give a good home to a kid, who the hell cares if they bat for the other side?! As long as they don't perform gay sex in front of the kid.

Originally posted by Lucky_13
Not intended to be homophobic so my apoligies if offence was caused. But people do have kids as a status symbol ie if people want their children to be mixed race. I was hoping this could be a good discussion but as usual it has turned into a rant as my 'homophobic' comments have wound you up. apologies again

It would appear that homophobia isn't your only issue.

I find that extremely offensive. Mixed race couples have children because they want too, what a twisted view of the world you hold.

Originally posted by Lucky_13
Not intended to be homophobic so my apoligies if offence was caused. But people do have kids as a status symbol ie if people want their children to be mixed race. I was hoping this could be a good discussion but as usual it has turned into a rant as my 'homophobic' comments have wound you up. apologies again

Have to agree with Disco_Cat. Who, exactly, does this? Do YOU know anyone? I don't! Anyone who has/adopts kids for 'status' isn't fit to have them, of course! But noone does!

What an odd thing to say.

Anyway I say that anyone who can get through the adoption services strict guidelines (and I've heard stories of searching underwear drawers etc) should be congratulated for their perseverence and absolutely should be able to have a child. Yes, there may be some bullying at school, but the only way to combat this is to make it a more mainstream thing to happen, and the only way for that to happen is for more gay couples to be able to adopt.

50 years ago a child would have had the **** bullied out of them for being from a broken home or a mixed race family. It's just normal now.

Anyway, I already know a couple of families with two lesbian mothers, why is it so different for men?

the gay term was meant in general - the gender was only dependent upon the tv program which prompted my comment.

easy answer....No

Originally posted by willman
just watched a trailer about a gay guy who was fed of being gay(& the life!!). he wanted to have a nuclear family i.e wife & children & decided to try changing to being straight.

if being gay was a lifestyle choice would it be fair to allow those sex couples to adopt, or is their sexuality not important.?

(their is no inference that they would be any worse or better than other couples)

Surely one of the main considerations for anyone having/adopting/fostering kids is that you can offer a loving and supportive family. So, it doesn't really matter what your situation is (gay, straight, single, black, white, rich, poor, etc), its what you can offer the child that's important.

homosexuality is a perversion, children should expect to be brought up with a mother and father, not with two perverts

are gay people allowed to adopt?

Ah, shame on those children from single-parent families then. Outcasts in Bertie_Bassett's tiny world.

Don't put words in my mouth, and speak for yourself.

Single parents do a terrific job in the circumstances that they find themselves in.

Feargal seems to have a problem with people being allowed to give their honest opinion, all he appears to want are "politically correct" opinions!!! How pathetic.

Originally posted by feargal
Ah, shame on those children from single-parent families then. Outcasts in Bertie_Bassett's tiny world.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
Rah Rah Rah Rah! Yell! Rant!

Originally posted by BertieBasset
Don't put words in my mouth, and speak for yourself.


Hardly putting words in your mouth, you said "children should expect to be brought up with a mother and father"! And speaking for myself, I see no difference in being brought up by two parents of either sex, and being brought up by one. It's the quality of the parenting (for want of a better word!)

Smallville minds persecuting someone for being honest...

Originally posted by BertieBasset
Single parents do a terrific job in the circumstances that they find themselves in.


Even single gay parents (yes, they do exist) ?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
homosexuality is a perversion, children should expect to be brought up with a mother and father, not with two perverts

Leaving aside your rather worrying attitude towards homosexuality, which planet are you on? Do you know how many single parent families there are out there in the real world? It's like preaching the gospel of repatriating foreigners, it isn't going to happen. Enjoy the world for what it is now, don't spend your days wishing for something that isn't going to happen.

it was quite plain for all to see you were mis-quoting. Children should rightly have high expectations of their parents and being brought up by a couple of perverts would fall well short of that...children are very impressionable and shouldn't be nurtured into same sex relationships

Originally posted by feargal
Hardly putting words in your mouth, you said "children should expect to be brought up with a mother and father"! And speaking for myself, I see no difference in being brought up by two parents of either sex, and being brought up by one. It's the quality of the parenting (for want of a better word!)

Sorry, I posted before Bertie edited. I have no problem with you having your say - of course you can offer your opinion, as I was offering mine. I certainly don't only expect PC comments... they are generally quite dull.

Please accept my apologies for my patheticness in not agreeing with your homophobic remarks.

maybe worrying in your opinion, homosexuality defacto is a perversion....errrr hellllllllllllllllllo??????

Originally posted by pete_jim
Leaving aside your rather worrying attitude towards homosexuality, which planet are you on? Do you know how many single parent families there are out there in the real world? It's like preaching the gospel of repatriating foreigners, it isn't going to happen. Enjoy the world for what it is now, don't spend your days wishing for something that isn't going to happen.

I am apalled by the homophobia on this thread, but its to be expected.

And yes I think gay couples should be allowed to adopt. So long as they can provide a secure, stable, loving home the same as straight couples.

I have a friend who has two mums. And with regard to bullying, you are more likely to be bullied for things such as wearing glasses
and being over-weight than having two same sex parents.

And Bertie-Bassett I wouldn't describe any of my gay friends as perverts. But I have met plenty of straight men who are.

OK Bertie, I'm willing to hear your side of the argument. Please set out in plain english for all us thickos what exactly is perverted about homosexuality?

there you go again....

Homosexuals defacto are perverted....just stating the facts

Babies come from something that happened between men and women if u weren't aware of that

Originally posted by feargal
Sorry, I posted before Bertie edited. I have no problem with you having your say - of course you can offer your opinion, as I was offering mine. I certainly don't only expect PC comments... they are generally quite dull.

Please accept my apologies for my patheticness in not agreeing with your homophobic remarks.

Originally posted by Zenmaster
I am apalled by the homophobia on this thread, but its to be expected.


I'm suprised we got this far TBH.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
there you go again....

Homosexuals defacto are perverted....just stating the facts

Babies come from something that happened between men and women if u weren't aware of that

Yes but we're talking about adoption - so surely it doesn't much matter how the child was conceived?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
Babies come from something that happened between men and women if u weren't aware of that

I don't think anyone is suggesting two men (or two women) actually "have a baby", 'cause thats not possible.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
Feargal seems to have a problem with people being allowed to give their honest opinion, all he appears to want are "politically correct" opinions!!! How pathetic.


Aren't we just giving our honest opinion that you're opinions disgust us. I'd rather see the gayist person in the world bring up a child than someone with issues like yours.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
Babies come from something that happened between men and women if u weren't aware of that

Well, to take that argument forward then, as well as no same-sex couples adopting, absolutely no fertility treatment should be allowed (as it's intervention in something that should 'come naturally'), and when a couple have a baby, they have to stay together forever. ;)

I'd look up a definition of homophobia if i were you. I don't have a problem with gay people, and I'm not homophobic, they can do as they like, but I don't agree with them adopting children, and homosexuality is a perversion, that's defacto whether you like it or not, and those involved in perversion are perverts....

did i really need to go into this level of detail to make this clear????????

Just because somebody doesn't think gay people are the bees knees in every walk and aspect of life doesn't make them homophobic, you keep your politically correct views and I'll keep my honest ones thanks.

Originally posted by Zenmaster
I am apalled by the homophobia on this thread, but its to be expected.

And yes I think gay couples should be allowed to adopt. So long as they can provide a secure, stable, loving home the same as straight couples.

I have a friend who has two mums. And with regard to bullying, you are more likely to be bullied for things such as wearing glasses
and being over-weight than having two same sex parents.

And Bertie-Bassett I wouldn't describe any of my gay friends as perverts. But I have met plenty of straight men who are.

Well now, if Bertie is saying, by using the word "perversion", that homosexuality is a deviation from the perceived norm, then I can't really fault him (but of course, so are plenty of other forms of sexual behaviour indulged in by straight couples).

However, the word "perversion" sounds like a moral or value judgement to me... is that intended, Bertie?

If so, do you think that children should not be brought up by straight couples who enjoy anal sex?

*sound of spanner being thrown into the works*

Originally posted by feargal
Well, to take that argument forward then, as well as no same-sex couples adopting, absolutely no fertility treatment should be allowed (as it's intervention in something that should 'come naturally'), and when a couple have a baby, they have to stay together forever.

that may be a topic for another post it may also be his opininon however it's not relevant to adoption in this cae i don't think.

it's not a moral judgement at all, let gay people do what they like and don't condemn them, we all have free will and choices...but I think children ought to be given the closest to a set of male and female parents for their start in life as we can get.

I think once a couple become parents their main obligation and responsibility in life should be their children and they should do all within their power to make sure their children have as supportive upbringing as is possible.

I do take issue when someone who chooses to be honest and not politically correct gets torrents of abuse and is hailed as being homophobic, just because they have a different view to some other people, that is the thin end of persecution, people should be allowed to express their views without that kind of backlash from the "pc brigade".

Originally posted by Bully_Beef
Well now, if Bertie is saying, by using the word "perversion", that homosexuality is a deviation from the perceived norm, then I can't really fault him (but of course, so are plenty of other forms of sexual behaviour indulged in by straight couples).

However, the word "perversion" sounds like a moral or value judgement to me... is that intended, Bertie?

If so, do you think that children should not be brought up by straight couples who enjoy anal sex?

You're right Willman, I got carried away defending myself! Sorry ;)

Let's keep it on topic (tonight's programme for those of us who forgot).

Originally posted by Bully_Beef
Well now, if Bertie is saying, by using the word "perversion", that homosexuality is a deviation from the perceived norm, then I can't really fault him (but of course, so are plenty of other forms of sexual behaviour indulged in by straight couples).

However, the word "perversion" sounds like a moral or value judgement to me... is that intended, Bertie?

If so, do you think that children should not be brought up by straight couples who enjoy anal sex?

*sound of spanner being thrown into the works*

The 'perceived norm' has changed now though.
Being homosexual is not so unusual as to count as a perversion.

And why would not conforming to the norm in one area of life somehow make people unfit to be parents Bertie?
Unless BB is correct and it was a moral judgement you were pronouncing.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
Homosexuals defacto are perverted


Originally posted by BertieBasset
I don't have a problem with gay people, and I'm not homophobic,

Anyone seeing conflict of views here?

Gracious me....

LOOK Bertie_, as you keep using the term, and it's starting to get to me 'defacto' should actually be 'de facto' - Latin for 'in fact', in which case it is ok to use the english. You're starting to sound like a bit of a ponce as well as a homophobic ignoramus.

Anyway enough of the insults because I'll probably get banned or some such thing.

I'm getting a bit annoyed with this 'I don't have a problem with them but....it's perverted/disgusting/wrong' view of people who say 'i'm not racist/homophobic/etc'.

It's not a perversion in any way, it's just a different hormonal balance. Please check this theory:

0 - exclusively heterosexual
1 - predominantly heterosexual, incidentally homosexual
2 - predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 - equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 - predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 - predominantly homosexual, incidentally heterosexual
6 - exclusively homosexual

The Kinsey Sliding-Scale theory.

As far as I am concerned it's nothing to do with PC-ness, homosexuality just 'is' as every day as anything else, and it's only socialisation that causes a majority of heterosexuality.

Now please, either admit that you find homosexuality disgusting, or show some tolerance and bring yourself into the modern day. If I was working at an adoption agency I wouldn't let YOU through the process.

yes i don't agree with fertility treatment either, I think couples who can't produce their own children should be more selfless adopt, and help out some poor orphan who through no fault of their own has had a setback in life and would benefit from two supportive parents

Originally posted by willman
that may be a topic for another post it may also be his opininon however it's not relevant to adoption in this cae i don't think.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
it's not a moral judgement at all, let gay people do what they like and don't condemn them, we all have free will and choices...but I think children ought to be given the closest to a set of male and female parents for their start in life as we can get.


The thing is that it makes no difference, I had a mum and dad (obviously, thats how I got here), who raised me, so did most of my mates but were still gay.

the kinsey thing is only a theory - or is that comment only justified to support PC or creation.

Originally posted by nick2
The thing is that it makes no difference, I had a mum and dad (obviously, thats how I got here), who raised me, so did most of my mates but were still gay.

Exactly, and 1 in 3 heterosexual marriages now end in divorce? How can anyone put this forward as an 'ideal' family set-up? Puh-lease.

Originally posted by willman
the kinsey thing is only a theory - or is that comment only justified to support PC or creation.

Course it is. Hence the word 'theory' i mentioned twice.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
it's not a moral judgement at all, let gay people do what they like and don't condemn them, we all have free will and choices...but I think children ought to be given the closest to a set of male and female parents for their start in life as we can get.

I think once a couple become parents their main obligation and responsibility in life should be their children and they should do all within their power to make sure their children have as supportive upbringing as is possible.

I do take issue when someone who chooses to be honest and not politically correct gets torrents of abuse and is hailed as being homophobic, just because they have a different view to some other people, that is the thin end of persecution, people should be allowed to express their views without that kind of backlash from the "pc brigade".

given that there are never enough parents to adopt all the potential adoptee's a gay couple is closer to a normal family than they would get by staying in the orphanage.

You express your view, we express our view of your view, you express your view of our view of your view, that's life.

It seems very strange that hardly anyone has mentioned the feelings or the opinions of the children involved in all this .
Has anyone got any data on children who have been brought up by gay couples ?
Surely their answers should be the most important in deciding the rights or wrongs of the argument.

Originally posted by Fareast
It seems very strange that hardly anyone has mentioned the feelings or the opinions of the children involved in all this .
Has anyone got any data on children who have been brought up by gay couples ?
Surely their answers should be the most important in deciding the rights or wrongs of the argument.

The people I mentioned who have been brought up by lesbian parents are probably the most well-adjusted and independent people I know.

at least i'm not ugly like you....see we can all insult other people. And STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH DOSEY ROSIE, you are trying to connect a perfectly accurate statement that I have made "gay people are de facto perverts" with other comments that you like to attribute to homophobia that I have NEVER said or would agree with !!! When did I say it was "disgusting"????? So STOP associating my comments with others that you have "manufactured"

Modern day doesn't equate to whether something is morally right or wrong, or whether it fits well with a particular situation like finding suitable foster parents.

I have already said gay people can do whatever they like, they have free will, and I have also stated I am not homophobic but I do not think they are suitable foster parents.

Just because you appear to be 100% in favour of everything to do with gay people doesn't mean we should all agrree with you, and it is YOU that should show more tolerance in your smallminded views...

You know nothing about me and I'm sure with your views you'd never get a job in an adoption agency.



Originally posted by noseyrosie
Anyone seeing conflict of views here?

Gracious me....

LOOK Bertie_, as you keep using the term, and it's starting to get to me 'defacto' should actually be 'de facto' - Latin for 'in fact', in which case it is ok to use the english. You're starting to sound like a bit of a ponce as well as a homophobic ignoramus.

Anyway enough of the insults because I'll probably get banned or some such thing.

I'm getting a bit annoyed with this 'I don't have a problem with them but....it's perverted/disgusting/wrong' view of people who say 'i'm not racist/homophobic/etc'.

It's not a perversion in any way, it's just a different hormonal balance. Please check this theory:

0 - exclusively heterosexual
1 - predominantly heterosexual, incidentally homosexual
2 - predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 - equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 - predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 - predominantly homosexual, incidentally heterosexual
6 - exclusively homosexual

The Kinsey Sliding-Scale theory.

As far as I am concerned it's nothing to do with PC-ness, homosexuality just 'is' as every day as anything else, and it's only socialisation that causes a majority of heterosexuality.

Now please, either admit that you find homosexuality disgusting, or show some tolerance and bring yourself into the modern day. If I was working at an adoption agency I wouldn't let YOU through the process.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Exactly, and 1 in 3 heterosexual marriages now end in divorce? How can anyone put this forward as an 'ideal' family set-up? Puh-lease.

nobody said it was better or ideal - i think that the classification of nomal tends to cock these discussions up.
just being "homo" doesn't guarantee you staying together or is infidelity etc restricted to hetero's.

it as a valid view point that if you can't physically produce your children then you shouldn' thave them - which is supported by extensive religious beliefs.

similarly same sex couples can offer tremendous stability,love & caring - but if the choice of sexuality was a lifestyle choice would that endanger the correctness of them adopting.

what a surprise you should say that!

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The people I mentioned who have been brought up by lesbian parents are probably the most well-adjusted and independent people I know.

Bertie - what does the fact that two gay people don't conform to commonly percieved sexual roles have to do with their suitability to bring up a child?

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The people I mentioned who have been brought up by lesbian parents are probably the most well-adjusted and independent people I know.

I'm not sure I'd go that far, we have our fare share of nutters, murderers, pervs and psychos.

[MOD NOTE] Try not to let this decend into name calling, please.

Originally posted by BoroughGal
[MOD NOTE] Try not to let this decend into name calling, please.

& not before time!!

Originally posted by nick2
I'm not sure I'd go that far, we have our fare share of nutters, murderers, pervs and psychos.

Haha obviously - not generalising just giving one example.

There are crazies from every walk of life.

I was just trying to say that it doesn't neccessarily have a negative effect.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
at least i'm not ugly like you....see we can all insult other people. And STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH DOSEY ROSIE, you are trying to connect a perfectly accurate statement that I have made "gay people are de facto perverts" with other comments that you like to attribute to homophobia that I have NEVER said or would agree with !!! When did I say it was "disgusting"????? So STOP associating my comments with others that you have "manufactured"

Modern day doesn't equate to whether something is morally right or wrong, or whether it fits well with a particular situation like finding suitable foster parents.

I have already said gay people can do whatever they like, they have free will, and I have also stated I am not homophobic but I do not think they are suitable foster parents.

Just because you appear to be 100% in favour of everything to do with gay people doesn't mean we should all agrree with you, and it is YOU that should show more tolerance in your smallminded views...

You know nothing about me and I'm sure with your views you'd never get a job in an adoption agency.

Yeah, I bet they hate people who can judge everyone on their individual attributes rather than their sexual orientation.

Anyway, I can see where you're coming from, vaguely, in that I put words into your mouth - not intended - I wasn't referring to you I was making a statement in general.

I just still don't understand why you think that, if homosexuality is a natural choice (maybe thats an oxymoron...) it is so wrong for them to bring up kids?

Originally posted by samc

But maybe I have yet to have my 'decide to gay or hetro day'. If tomorrow morning when I get up and want to pull on a pair of dungarees and get my hair cropped short and snog the postlady it will be the day I decide to be a lesbian.


Not all lesbians have short hair and wear dungarees, you know! :D

children are very impressionable. Nature intended that both a man and woman should be parents, not same sex ones. Children are easily ribbed at school, why make life deliberately harder for children just to suit your own selfish motives of "being same sex parents". In todays society children from same sex adoptive parents would get a lot of abuse in life...

Originally posted by Cyclone
Bertie - what does the fact that two gay people don't conform to commonly percieved sexual roles have to do with their suitability to bring up a child?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
children are very impressionable. Nature intended that both a man and woman should be parents, not same sex ones. Children are easily ribbed at school, why make life deliberately harder for children just to suit your own selfish motives of "being same sex parents". In todays society children from same sex adoptive parents would get a lot of abuse in life...

I don't agree with you BUT if I did - surely a gay parenthood is preferable and closer to a mixed sex parenthood than living in a children's home with social workers?

so are you now talking about homophobics bringing up children??????????????????? :loopy:

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Yeah, I bet they hate people who can judge everyone on their individual attributes rather than their sexual orientation.

Anyway, I can see where you're coming from, vaguely, in that I put words into your mouth - not intended - I wasn't referring to you I was making a statement in general.

I just still don't understand why you think that, if homophobia is a natural choice (maybe thats an oxymoron...) it is so wrong for them to bring up kids?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
children are very impressionable. Nature intended that both a man and woman should be parents, not same sex ones. Children are easily ribbed at school, why make life deliberately harder for children just to suit your own selfish motives of "being same sex parents". In todays society children from same sex adoptive parents would get a lot of abuse in life...

given that we aren't suggesting gay parents should take preference to straight ones, it's not a choice between one or the other.

The choice is between the orphanage or gay parents. Which do you think would be a worse upbringing?

And how can you call it selfish, it's no more selfish for a gay couple to wish to bring up a child than it is for a straight couple to do so.

Originally posted by BoroughGal
Not all lesbians have short hair and wear dungarees, you know! :D

so that why i can never pull, gonna grow me hair & get rid of the "Rainbow" dungarees.

I don't know on what evidence you can say that...???

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I don't agree with you BUT if I did - surely a gay parenthood is preferable and closer to a mixed sex parenthood than living in a children's home with social workers?

Just a theory, but maybe nature created same-sex couples in order to care for orphans, if they aren't going to have children of their own, this may have been their function in our early evolution. Just an idea, survival of the species and all that. Otherwise there seems to be no real evolutionary purpose for gay people.

I'm sure there's someone for everyone......?

i think it is given that the child is more likely to suffer verbal abuse as a result of the "gay parents", why use children to try to justify your stance in life?

Originally posted by Cyclone


And how can you call it selfish, it's no more selfish for a gay couple to wish to bring up a child than it is for a straight couple to do so.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
so are you now talking about homophobics bringing up children??????????????????? :loopy:

Oh come off it, it was obviously a typo. Changed now.

I'm not sure that the majority of gay people care whether they are of any evolutionary value. They're just living their life in a way that is natural to them.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
I don't know on what evidence you can say that...???

Well there is extensive evidence that children who grow up in care are far more likely to end up in a life of crime. Sad but true. Wouldn't any kind of loving family help to prevent this?

I think you make far too many presumptions

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Well there is extensive evidence that children who grow up in care are far more likely to end up in a life of crime. Sad but true. Wouldn't any kind of loving family help to prevent this?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
i think it is given that the child is more likely to suffer verbal abuse as a result of the "gay parents", why use children to try to justify your stance in life?

Yes they might get a bit of verbal abuse, but then again, they might not. Surely society's views on homosexuality now are generally much more accepting then they were even 10 years ago.

You could be denying a child the chance of a loving family on the off-chance of a bit of tormenting. It seems like a weak reason to me!

Gay people cannot have children

Since when?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
I think you make far too many presumptions

I thought Roise said it was based on evidence rather than assumtions?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
I think you make far too many presumptions

I'm not presuming it, it just seems like a logical chain of events. THe evidence is always being brough up about the crime thing. I'm not saying that family life WOULD remedy this, but isn't it worth giving other options a chance? Orphans or foster kids need a bloody home, and I for one wouldn't stand in anyone's way to let them have it.

serves u right for criticising my mis-spelling of "de facto" in such a superior manner!!! It appears that even your english isn't perfect!

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Oh come off it, it was obviously a typo. Changed now.

Originally posted by rudeboy
Since when?

i think the point in question is that scientifically two members of the same sex cannot have children together.
if u know different can i be your PR manager.

what came first violence & murder or orphanages.??

I don't think so at all, I think it is VERY unfair needlessly exposing children to unnecessary abuse....if you or anyone else wants to be gay then fight your own corner, don't inadvertantly use children in it...

Originally posted by feargal
Yes they might get a bit of verbal abuse, but then again, they might not. Surely society's views on homosexuality now are generally much more accepting then they were even 10 years ago.

You could be denying a child the chance of a loving family on the off-chance of a bit of tormenting. It seems like a weak reason to me!

sounds just like a presumption to me...

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I'm not presuming it, it just seems like a logical chain of events.

I can see how you would want to protect kids from any potential abuse Bertie, but kids will always find something to pick on, even if it's not having the "right" trainers. It's a sad fact of life.

but why give other children another two dozen things to bully another child over...talk about weighing a child down and not even giving them a chance.

In todays society it wouldn't just be the other children, it would be their parents too, the child of a "same sex" couple would be seriously disadvantaged and marginalised.

Originally posted by feargal
I can see how you would want to protect kids from any potential abuse Bertie, but kids will always find something to pick on, even if it's not having the "right" trainers. It's a sad fact of life.

Bertie-Bassett what evidence do you have for saying that children of same-sex couples will get abuse for it.

I know two people who grew up with two mums and said they never had any real problem at school due to it. It was other things about them that they were bullied for, such as their personality, or appearance.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
i think it is given that the child is more likely to suffer verbal abuse as a result of the "gay parents", why use children to try to justify your stance in life?

so you've dropped the 'they shouldn't be brought up by parents' and now it's all 'think about the poor children'.

There isn't going to be any evidence for this either way, but my feeling is that being brought up by a gay couple would work out better for a child than being brought up by beurocrats in an orphanage and having no parents.

And Rosie wasn't making a presumption, children in care do have a far higher chance of becoming criminals than those from a family.
Since this includes single parent families, there's nothing to suggest that a same sex couple wouldn't be an improvement and plenty to suggest that it would.

You are scrabbling about for reasons and finding none, which kind of points at it being your personal issues and phobias that you are projecting.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
but why give other children another two dozen things to bully another child over...talk about weighing a child down and not even giving them a chance.

In todays society it wouldn't just be the other children, it would be their parents too, the child of a "same sex" couple would be seriously disadvantaged and marginalised.

Sigh, people do this always...as I said, the only way to reduce it is to make it more 'normal'.

I was bullied for being ginger, being short, not wanting to wear Nikes because they were awful about sweated labour, I was bullied when my parents split up, when my Grandparents died...I was bullied because I don't have a strong Sheffield accent and they thought I was 'posh', I was bullied for being clever/getting good results and working hard....

People are bullied for EVERYTHING.

And you know what, it really depends where the person goes to school. People at my 6th form school would never have been bullied for cleverness because everyone there gets good grades (due to class advantage obv.), wouldn't get bullied for accent because they've all got that 'beige' middle-class non-descript accent, etc.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
but why give other children another two dozen things to bully another child over...

But that's just it! It's NOT two dozen things, it's ONE thing. Going by the comments on here, the majority of people don't actually find it unacceptable, so who's to say whether a kid's classmates would even care?

I think that can be more accurately said about you. It's cahrming how someone who chooses to be "honest" gets such abuse from the PC crew!

Originally posted by Cyclone

You are scrabbling about for reasons and finding none, which kind of points at it being your personal issues and phobias that you are projecting.

I think that would be a good idea, however as Rosie said in a previous post - the children will have the 'p' taken out of them as modern children like to discriminate or place others into catagories.

If you [the child] do not fit into one of the catagories because your guardians are homosexual, then you've had it.

A nice idea, but in this unfortunate world, it wouldn't work [I'm not trying to sound like a Mail-reading 50 year-old ;)]

Originally posted by BertieBasset
I think that can be more accurately said about you. It's cahrming how someone who chooses to be "honest" gets such abuse from the PC crew!

Has it ever occurred to you that we're not just jumpinh on a PC bandwagon (something that I personally hate), but are also being honest? Honest to our own opinions? I know I'm being as honest as I can about how I feel about the subject.

why give other children more ammunition to bully a child? :loopy:

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Sigh, people do this always...as I said, the only way to reduce it is to make it more 'normal'.

I was bullied for being ginger, being short, not wanting to wear Nikes because they were awful about sweated labour, I was bullied when my parents split up, when my Grandparents died...I was bullied because I don't have a strong Sheffield accent and they thought I was 'posh', I was bullied for being clever/getting good results and working hard....

People are bullied for EVERYTHING.

And you know what, it really depends where the person goes to school. People at my 6th form school would never have been bullied for cleverness because everyone there gets good grades (due to class advantage obv.), wouldn't get bullied for accent because they've all got that 'beige' middle-class non-descript accent, etc.

Originally posted by Cyclone

And Rosie wasn't making a presumption, children in care do have a far higher chance of becoming criminals than those from a family.
Since this includes single parent families, there's nothing to suggest that a same sex couple wouldn't be an improvement and plenty to suggest that it would.

You are scrabbling about for reasons and finding none, which kind of points at it being your personal issues and phobias that you are projecting.

Cyclone, I agree with the fact that those that were in care are far more likely to end up being yob criminals that end up in prison (and, inevitably, end up like their parents - the cycle will continue).

Originally posted by amhudson119
I think that would be a good idea, however as Rosie said in a previous post - the children will have the 'p' taken out of them as modern children like to discriminate or place others into catagories.

If you [the child] do not fit into one of the catagories because your guardians are homosexual, then you've had it.

A nice idea, but in this unfortunate world, it wouldn't work [I'm not trying to sound like a Mail-reading 50 year-old ;)]

But my point was that people are bound to get bullied in any circumstance, unless they're big and do kickboxing or something. In which case, you can't eliminate any of the other catalysts for bullying, kids just, unfortunately, have to get on with it, so don't try to eliminate it on those grounds.

Oh and the other thing....

Kids get bullied tons for being in care you know.

At last some common sense prevails....

Originally posted by amhudson119
I think that would be a good idea, however as Rosie said in a previous post - the children will have the 'p' taken out of them as modern children like to discriminate or place others into catagories.

If you [the child] do not fit into one of the catagories because your guardians are homosexual, then you've had it.

A nice idea, but in this unfortunate world, it wouldn't work [I'm not trying to sound like a Mail-reading 50 year-old ;)]

Originally posted by BertieBasset
I think that can be more accurately said about you. It's cahrming how someone who chooses to be "honest" gets such abuse from the PC crew!

how am I scrabbling about for reasons. Yours have changed a few times now, mine are staying constant.

It's better for a child to be in any family, be that straight parents, gay parents, single parents, with grandparents or whatever, than it is for them to be in state care.

Your argument at the moment is that they'll get bullied. Compared to a life in state care and the increased likelihood of becoming a career criminal i'd say the risk of bullying is acceptable (if it's even a real risk).

Originally posted by BertieBasset
why give other children more ammunition to bully a child? :loopy:

It's not really, if they weren't getting bullied for having gay parents, they'd be bullied for not having parents. Or having rich parents. Or poor parents. Or parents who live in a big house. Or a small one. Or not having a car. Or having a split family. Or one that's still together (in a lot of schools this happens quite a lot!).

Can't you see?

you come across at trying to hit anyone for six who isn't 100% in support of gay people, battering the views of anyone who doesn't agree with you and using personal insults into the bargain!

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Has it ever occurred to you that we're not just jumpinh on a PC bandwagon (something that I personally hate), but are also being honest? Honest to our own opinions? I know I'm being as honest as I can about how I feel about the subject.

[MOD NOTE]This thread is in serious danger of falling into personal abuse - this is a final warning to return to some form of civilised debate before the thread gets removed.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
you come across at trying to hit anyone for six who isn't 100% in support of gay people, battering the views of anyone who doesn't agree with you and using personal insults into the bargain!

That's not strictly true - I'm 100% in support of PEOPLE in general, as long as they're willing and capable of looking after kids.

do we just have to believe Rosie 'cos she tells us so...?

Originally posted by noseyrosie
But my point was that people are bound to get bullied in any circumstance, unless they're big and do kickboxing or something. In which case, you can't eliminate any of the other catalysts for bullying, kids just, unfortunately, have to get on with it, so don't try to eliminate it on those grounds.

Oh and the other thing....

Kids get bullied tons for being in care you know.

Originally posted by evildrneil
[MOD NOTE]This thread is in serious danger of falling into personal abuse - this is a final warning to return to some form of civilised debate before the thread gets removed.

Oh no, don't get rid of this - I've just got into it.

Alex - :)

Originally posted by BoroughGal
Not all lesbians have short hair and wear dungarees, you know! :D

I was being ironic !:P

Anyway back to the discussion !!

Originally posted by BertieBasset
do we just have to believe Rosie 'cos she tells us so...?

I'm just speaking from experience. I didn't ask you to believe me....what's the problem? :(

they haven't at all, re-read them, mine have been the most consistent.

And for u to say that it is better for them to be in "any family" simply isn't true. What if both parents are heroin addicts, your statement would presume that the child is better off with two druggies....



Originally posted by Cyclone
how am I scrabbling about for reasons. Yours have changed a few times now, mine are staying constant.

It's better for a child to be in any family, be that straight parents, gay parents, single parents, with grandparents or whatever, than it is for them to be in state care.

Your argument at the moment is that they'll get bullied. Compared to a life in state care and the increased likelihood of becoming a career criminal i'd say the risk of bullying is acceptable (if it's even a real risk).

Contradictory to a previous post of mine, I'd prefer the fact of homosexual parents over the great likelyhood of ending up in a life ridden with crime.

As NR pointed out in a previous post, children are catagorised for everything - regardless of what it is (although the car analogy may be a little extreme), and this is an extra one that the bully can add to their list, but I still believe the gay parents versus crime - ridden life - the former wins.

you are just presuming (again) that all children will constantly get bullied and that is the status quo....ermmm no!

Originally posted by noseyrosie
It's not really, if they weren't getting bullied for having gay parents, they'd be bullied for not having parents. Or having rich parents. Or poor parents. Or parents who live in a big house. Or a small one. Or not having a car. Or having a split family. Or one that's still together (in a lot of schools this happens quite a lot!).

Can't you see?

Originally posted by amhudson119
Contradictory to a previous post of mine, I'd prefer the fact of homosexual parents over the great likelyhood of ending up in a life ridden with crime.

As NR pointed out in a previous post, children are catagorised for everything - regardless of what it is (although the car analogy may be a little extreme),

It was deliberate, hun, I'm trying to point out the absurdity of the whole argument :thumbsup:

Originally posted by BertieBasset
And for u to say that it is better for them to be in "any family" simply isn't true. What if both parents are heroin addicts, your statement would presume that the child is better off with two druggies....

whereas you are saying the heroin addicts (if they are straight) would be better parents than two men/women, because the kid woudn't get picked-on as much for having a junkie mum ?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
they haven't at all, re-read them, mine have been the most consistent.

And for u to say that it is better for them to be in "any family" simply isn't true. What if both parents are heroin addicts, your statement would presume that the child is better off with two druggies....

Common sense here, a "loving" family is better than that of offending homes or whatever they call them these days.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
you are just presuming (again) that all children will constantly get bullied and that is the status quo....ermmm no!

Erm yes.

I don't know how old you are? But I'm only 18 and went to a large urban school only 2 years ago. I can't think of anyone who wasn't bullied or teased over their school career apart from the bullied themselves.

Excuse me for answering on your behalf Cyclone, but I think it's clear to see that he was saying that it's better for a child to be raised in a loving and safe environment, whatever the sexuality of the parents.

I can see that, and for you to pick up on it and bring "druggies" into the equasion is clutching at straws, IMO.

you speak as if the clouds open and the truth is about to be heard.... :loopy:

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I'm just speaking from experience. I didn't ask you to believe me....what's the problem? :(

Originally posted by Cyclone
It's better for a child to be in any family, be that straight parents, gay parents, single parents, with grandparents or whatever, than it is for them to be in state care.



Is It???
fred west
gary glitter
the 15 year old abandoned by her mum.

is it better to be in a family "just for the sake of it"

either way it doesn't stop people from wanting to adopt.& i think most people have now gone into a civil liberties,left v right rant.

the original post was "if gay was a lifestyle choice" not is gay right or wrong.

Originally posted by BoroughGal
Excuse me for answering on your behalf Cyclone, but I think it's clear to see that he was saying that it's better for a child to be raised in a loving and safe environment, whatever the sexuality of the parents.

I can see that, and for you to pick up on it and bring "druggies" into the equasion is clutching at straws, IMO.

Indeed, I think ol' Bert has run out of ideas.

Happy Shamarara-ing (or whatever it is called) ;)

Erm no!

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Erm yes.

I don't know how old you are? But I'm only 18 and went to a large urban school only 2 years ago. I can't think of anyone who wasn't bullied or teased over their school career apart from the bullied themselves.

i haven't said that, you've just said that

Originally posted by nick2
whereas you are saying the heroin addicts (if they are straight) would be better parents than two men/women, because the kid woudn't get picked-on as much for having a junkie mum ?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
Erm no!

Well at least you have a well thought out, reasoned argument there.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
Erm no!

:confused: To what...? Are you denying that myself and the majority of people at my school suffered bullying? School life is just cruel.

clutch at whatever you want, he posted a very loose statement

Originally posted by BoroughGal
Excuse me for answering on your behalf Cyclone, but I think it's clear to see that he was saying that it's better for a child to be raised in a loving and safe environment, whatever the sexuality of the parents.

I can see that, and for you to pick up on it and bring "druggies" into the equasion is clutching at straws, IMO.

I can't agree....'loving and safe' wouldn't normally be seen to include exposure to regular class A drug use, I think this is implicit.

i could quite easily see why a snooty girl was bullied

Originally posted by noseyrosie
:confused: To what...? Are you denying that myself and the majority of people at my school suffered bullying? School life is just cruel.

No, YOU were clutching, not me.

And so now I've amended the "loose" statement, your opinions please?

Originally posted by BertieBasset
they haven't at all, re-read them, mine have been the most consistent.

And for u to say that it is better for them to be in "any family" simply isn't true. What if both parents are heroin addicts, your statement would presume that the child is better off with two druggies....

i'm not going to argue that 'druggie' parents are better than non at all. There are a few occassions when a child is better off being raised by the state.
Having same sex parents isn't one of them though. If it were then we'd have to start taking children off single mums who subsequently become lesbian (or indeed fathers with custody who become gay), which clearly wouldn't be done as their natural parent can still be a perfectly good parent.

If that's the case, then there's no reason a gay couple can't provide a good family life for a child (certainly better than the state can provide) and so no reason that they shouldn't be able to adopt.

Wasn't your earlier argument that they were "perverts" and children shouldn't be raised by perverts?

i don't agree that school life is full of bullying all of the time for 100% of the school population, which is what Rosie was saying

Originally posted by BoroughGal
Well at least you have a well thought out, reasoned argument there.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
i could quite easily see why a snooty girl was bullied

Oh how ironic, you've just proved that the reason you don't believe me is that you were probably one of the bullies when you were at school. How have I shown myself to be 'snooty'? Snootiness would normally imply seeing some people as inferior to oneself....I reckon I've shown you that I have a pretty open minded approach to people so I've no idea how that came across.

Originally posted by BertieBasset
i could quite easily see why a snooty girl was bullied

[MOD NOTE] As things seem to have descended into petty schoolyard namecalling I think it's perhaps time we all stepped back from the keyboard and took a deep breath. The thread will be re-opened when people have had a chance to cool off a little.

[EDIT] Thread now re-opened. Please try to keep it civil and on topic or it WILL be removed. Thankyou

It's open again....

Do you all really think I come across as snooty? *mortified* answers on a PM please ;)

Anyway, where were we. I can see of no reasonable argument (and yes, there are clearly some arguments but I just don't think they're strong enough) why gay couples should not be able to adopt. My strongest 3 reasons for believing this are:

1) The more something happens, the less it becomes a stigma/unusual thing, and so, the bullying factor becomes reduced over time.

2) Parents who have children, split up with their heterosexual parent and then form a homosexual relationship with someone else raise children successfully all the time. What's the difference?

3) Different family structures exist worldwide, so there is nothing to say that our 'traditional' way of bringing up children with the birth parents is the most natural or the most effective way of bringing them up. Examples of other ways of bringing children up (taken from good old A-level Sociology....it gets everywhere): Kibbutz communes, polynesian traditions of children being brought up by the grandparents until the mother is deemed responsible enough, other indigenous (forgive me for forgetting the place) tradition of a woman having a child with her uncle and then giving the child to him and his wife...

People who want to adopt usually want to do so to give a child a good home and the best future that they can offer. That is the important thing.

Kids do bully other children but in my experience, kids are not born with prejudices, they learn them from adult influences in their lives. Children tend to think their home enviroment is the 'norm' if they hear adults using names like 'pervert' they will take that to school, tell their friends and that's where the bullying begins.

The adults who have the prejudices need re-educating but I don't know how you would do that. People don't tend to change their view about gay couples adopting, mixed race marriages, single parents, etc, etc

Originally posted by tulip

The adults who have the prejudices need re-educating but I don't know how you would do that. People don't tend to change their view about gay couples adopting, mixed race marriages, single parents, etc, etc

It just takes a few generations of integration really. Yes people suffer on the way, but we all know it changed eventually.

E.g. when my dad moved to east london as a child he was called 'wog' and 'darkie' and stuff, even by teachers. THere are still some people with this attitude but because there are a lot more asian/black people in the country now, racism is decreasing. Except for all this bloody terrorist scaremongering but thats another issue...

I cant see no reason why gay couples shouldnt be allowed to adopt. The only reason I can think of is the 'teasing' factor that the child may have to go through.

The child may indeed NOT go through that, but its still an extra issue for the child before their life has even begun.

Kids will always find something to tease other kids about. My best friend in elementary school was from Saudi Arabia. One girl picked up words from her parents like 'wog' and 'nig nog' and she made this poor girls life hell .... and mine for being her friend! I wore glasses for a short time and was called 'four eyes' by the same girl. I heard her mother talking about the 'N' word when she picked up her daughter at the school gates. There are obviously still people who have prejudices but fortunately it is a lot less common now and teachers are better at dealing with issues like gay couples and how having two Mom's or two Dad's is not a problem.

Gay parents are not the problem it is the people who are homophobic that are the problem!

Originally posted by tulip
Gay parents are not the problem it is the people who are homophobic that are the problem!

Never a truer word was spoken. Put it this way - if there were no people to say it's wrong, it wouldn't be an issue, therefore the kids wouldn't get bullied. Ironically it's the people who complain about possible bullying problems that inflame the issue - if it wasn't seen as a reason for bullying then noone would bully them over it! Wow I'm making no sense!:loopy:

Gay couples don't want kids!

We would much rather spend our money on expensive shoes and better hair.

Thanks.

why shouldn't gay couples adopt?

There are children who need to be adopted and I don't see why a gay couple can't do it. Yeah, they could get bullied but so to those with ginger hair, class, fat etc. I'm sure gay parents could give a kid as good or better ubringin ghtan a lot of straight ones.

It's all about love.

And should I have the mishap of having children ever the any gay couple who wants them can have them:suspect:

Originally posted by willman
Is It???
fred west
gary glitter
the 15 year old abandoned by her mum.

is it better to be in a family "just for the sake of it"

either way it doesn't stop people from wanting to adopt.& i think most people have now gone into a civil liberties,left v right rant.

the original post was "if gay was a lifestyle choice" not is gay right or wrong. the people you mentioned didn't adopt children though, which was the reason the thread was started:confused:

People have kids the 'natural way' some don't take very good care of their children or didn't even want the children in the first place. People who want to adopt put themselves through a lot because they really want a child. If the adoptive parents are a man and woman, a mixed raced couple, two women or two men as long as they look after the child and bring him/her up in a loving enviroment, that is all that matters.

Sexual preference doesn't come into it. No kids want to know about their parent sex lives do they? They want to think their parents go to bed and sleep. It is not something that is on display in a same sex couple partnership than it is with a heterosexual couple.

BTW this is not a rant & you don't have to be left wing to be gay:)

Originally posted by noseyrosie
It's open again....

Do you all really think I come across as snooty? *mortified* answers on a PM please ;)


I see you as a pleasent, bright girl (see "A-Level" thread).

This being halted last night, really put me off what I was going to write as I have forgotten - oh ***** - ;)

I'll read through some previous posts to jog my memory.

I'm absolutely in favour of gay adoption. In my opinion, the positives greatly outweigh the negatives. The vast majority of people in this thread )who have commented, at least) seem to agree with me, so maybe it should happen - that's where democracy comes in ;) The next question of course is whether the sample of people here is representative of the general population, and I would hazard a guess as to this perhaps not being the case...

At the risk of tempting any more name-calling, I have to say that I'm disappointed by the way people are using the PC phrase to bolster their arguments. If you are pro-racism, pro-homophobia, pro-smoking, pro-whatever, it seems to be an automatic joker card to double the strength of your argument by talking about political correctness. As someone said, the above is simply my opinion. To dismiss it as some weak-willed fashionable position is rather closed-minded and does your own argument no good whatsoever. In fact, people holding this position seem to use it in the absence of reason - please feel free to prove me wrong!

One last point - the first dictionary definition I came across for perverted reads "deviating from what is considered right and correct". I'm not gay, but I don't consider it wrong or incorrect - so in my view they are not perverted. To argue that they are is not factual, it is based on a subjective opinion. It's also a rather emotive word, which I think has caused some of the arguments in this thread :)

[ ps no, rosie doesn't come across as particularly snooty - whether you agree with her or not, at least she is presenting some coherent arguments. I'm not totally sure it's wise to criticise someone's grammar or writing in the midst of an argumentative thread like this though! ;) ]

I know of some children who have been fostered by a gay couple for years now after they were abused by several members of their origional household. The children felt unsafe around a certain gender therefor having the oppertunity to go and live with a gay couple was great for them. The only way the children have been affected is by slight bullying from other children but what child doesn't get bullied for some sort of reason or another. Gay people should have the same rights as any other person

Originally posted by rich951
I'm not totally sure it's wise to criticise someone's grammar or writing in the midst of an argumentative thread like this though! ;) ]

*Whistles*






But that's the SF way!

True enough, just try not to make any typos yourself while you're doing it! :wink: