what is your opinion on gay couples adopting?

[Real Korimyr #9]

Rather insults me when people say that single parents shouldn't adopt. It's an affront to the effort and the sacrifices my mom made for me and my sister.

Far be it from me to insult the hard work and commitment of a single parent who managed to raise a successful and upstanding member of our society. That's not my intention, and indeed I think that your mother should be praised for her success.

But this isn't a matter of you and your mother. One look at the statistics regarding the children of single parents shows that your family is the exception rather than the rule.

It'd be the same thing with two mommies or daddies.

Respectfully, I would say that it is not the same thing. Barring cases of abuse, two mothers or two fathers is better than having only one of either.

Children need love. They don't need equal representation from the sexes.

I agree with you... but they also need a roof over their heads, three square meals a day, and consistent adult supervision. They need stability at home and a variety of solid role models. While some people are capable of providing this alone-- hail to them!-- it is much easier (and likelier to succeed) to provide them with assistance from a spouse.

This would be less of an issue to me if extended families were closer. Problem is, when people are single in our society, they're as close to "on their own" as they can get in civilization.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Honestly? I'm sixteen. I have no idea what can be done about it.

That's fair. Question was about half-rhetorical anyway.

*blink* And yet knowing all this, you still consider married couples somehow more qualified to adopt a child than unmarried couples?

Marriage still has some teeth, legally and financially if not socially. It's better than nothing-- which is all an unmarried couple has to encourage them to stick together through hard times.

I'm not happy with our current situation, and I know I'm not going to be any happier with whatever we end up doing about it-- things are just plain moving in the wrong direction-- but this is too important to just give up on.

Maybe adoption agencies need to start relying on plain good judgement...

Rules that rely on "plain good judgement" ain't really rules at all, especially when people have such differing notions as to what constitutes "plain good judgement".

Whose "good judgement" are you going to accept? Mine? Stinger's? Kelzie's?

... and maybe accept that no matter what they do, they can't protect the children under their care from all the harsh bits of life...

Point taken. And there's surely worse things that can happen to a child than having their parents split.

I'm just not willing to accept the increasing instability of the average American family, even if I can't figure out how to fix it. I think giving up on marriage, and officially recognizing it as unnecessary for raising a family, is only going to make matters worse.

 

[George_Washington]

My dad. Did without him for my entire childhood. My mom did a fantastic job and I worship the ground she walks on for it. Rather insults me when people say that single parents shouldn't adopt. It's an afront to the effort and the sacrifices my mom made for me and my sister. It'd be the same thing with two mommies or daddies. Children need love. They don't need equal representation from the sexes.

Sorry to hear that you grew up without a father. But yeah, I think people can still grow up well with one parent. Although I do believe that the best way for a child to develop is still to have both parents, I also believe that people can grow up very well with just one solid and supportive parent.

 

[Pacridge]

The paint fumes got to me. I voted completely backward. So the three votes, currently, for "it should be illegal" should be two votes the 23 for "it should be legal" should be 24.

Sorry just read it wrong.

 

[Kelzie]

Sorry to hear that you grew up without a father. But yeah, I think people can still grow up well with one parent. Although I do believe that the best way for a child to develop is still to have both parents, I also believe that people can grow up very well with just one solid and supportive parent.

Don't be. He's a jerk, I'd take just my mom anyday. :mrgreen:

I think the best way for a child to grow up is whatever provides them with the most love. Whether it's from one parent or two, a hetero couple or a homo, shouldn't matter. What matters is who can provide the child with the support they need.

 

[FallingPianos]

I don't think that singles or unmarried couples ought to be allowed to adopt.

I dont either, but out of necessity I would make an exception for kids in foster care.

 

[Donkey1499]

Not all gay people are stereotypes. I'm what you would call "bi". If I met a guy who acted like one of the people on Queer Eye For The Straight Guy I would think he was pretty damn annoying.

You're bi? Eck, don't talk to me..... :mrgreen: j/k

 

[Donkey1499]

The paint fumes got to me. I voted completely backward. So the three votes, currently, for "it should be illegal" should be two votes the 23 for "it should be legal" should be 24.

Sorry just read it wrong.

Humph. Another Mod, like cnredd, who can't do ANYTHING right. Another reason why I should be King..... :mrgreen: :rofl

 

[Enola/Alone]

You're bi? Eck, don't talk to me..... :mrgreen: j/k

That's it, I'm getting the hunky male gymnasts from Cirque du Soleil to do warm up exercises on your front lawn. :mrgreen:

 

[Donkey1499]

That's it, I'm getting the hunky male gymnasts from Cirque du Soleil to do warm up exercises on your front lawn. :mrgreen:

Shhhhhhhh. Don't say that, you'll get George Washington and jallman all excited. :mrgreen:

 

[Enola/Alone]

Shhhhhhhh. Don't say that, you'll get George Washington and jallman all excited. :mrgreen:

And don't tell that Donkey bloke either, or he'll be out there in his wee pink leotard. :mrgreen:

 

[Donkey1499]

And don't tell that Donkey bloke either, or he'll be out there in his wee pink leotard. :mrgreen:

Bloke? Please...... more like KING OF ACIREMA!!!!!!!

 

[Lizai]

Marriage still has some teeth, legally and financially if not socially. It's better than nothing-- which is all an unmarried couple has to encourage them to stick together through hard times.

Whatever happened to love, and realizing that splitting up is going to affect more than just themselves?

Fair point on the finance thing, though.

Rules that rely on "plain good judgement" ain't really rules at all, especially when people have such differing notions as to what constitutes "plain good judgement".

Whose "good judgement" are you going to accept? Mine? Stinger's? Kelzie's?

Also a fair point. I was being stupid there.

Point taken. And there's surely worse things that can happen to a child than having their parents split.

I'm just not willing to accept the increasing instability of the average American family, even if I can't figure out how to fix it. I think giving up on marriage, and officially recognizing it as unnecessary for raising a family, is only going to make matters worse.

Actually I can see how that might be the case. Young couples, too irresponsible to make the full commitment by getting married, deciding that they're still somehow responsible enough for a child...

Hmm. I guess couples who want to adopt can just decide whether archaic concepts associated with the word "wife" are more important than being able to adopt a child.

I gues that example of Julie family versus mine just kind of jumped into my head and steered my viewpoint in a particular direction.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Whatever happened to love, and realizing that splitting up is going to affect more than just themselves?

I don't know. Whatever did happen to that idea, anyway? Used to be, that was a big part of what kept marriages together, too.

I guess that example of Julie family versus mine just kind of jumped into my head and steered my viewpoint in a particular direction.

It's a complicated issue. I know there's flaws in my viewpoint-- you pointed some of them out yourself-- but I still think it's better than the alternative. Or any other alternative I've heard, at least; there's a solution somewhere, and I reckon our society's going to find it eventually.

 

[FallingPianos]

I don't know. Whatever did happen to that idea, anyway? Used to be, that was a big part of what kept marriages together, too.

love has never kept marriages together. love is a feeling that comes and goes.

commitment keeps marriages together, and also has the benefit of being capible of deepening the love that is there.

the fact that people think love is all thats needed to keep love together is exactly why so many people divorce. they get to a hard time, the feeling goes away, and they think it means that they werent meant to be.

 

[Lizai]

I don't know. Whatever did happen to that idea, anyway? Used to be, that was a big part of what kept marriages together, too.



It's a complicated issue. I know there's flaws in my viewpoint-- you pointed some of them out yourself-- but I still think it's better than the alternative. Or any other alternative I've heard, at least; there's a solution somewhere, and I reckon our society's going to find it eventually.

Eventually. Hopefully. As long as we don't sit around and wait forever for it to happen.

love has never kept marriages together. love is a feeling that comes and goes.

commitment keeps marriages together, and also has the benefit of being capible of deepening the love that is there.

the fact that people think love is all thats needed to keep love together is exactly why so many people divorce. they get to a hard time, the feeling goes away, and they think it means that they werent meant to be.

An excellent point.

"All we need is love" is crap. So is "meant to be."

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Yes, I would say that it is-- for the most part-- but what you are missing is that the marriage license is the only objective, legally recognized means at our disposal of gauging a couple's commitment to eachother and their ability to commit to raising a child.

.

But marriage is rather a flawed measure. You need to be able to look beyond a marraige certificate. By this measure, the ilegal immigrant who pays for a sham marriage with any old money grabber can just decide they fancy a kid to complete the charade, while a loving, stable but unmarried couple could be denied the chance to give a child a good start. Adoption agencies currently look at candidates more deeply than "married or not?" and that shouldn't change. You jump hoops to adopt a child, and given the responsibility you're taking on, that's correct. But why on earth should being married or not have ANY influence in that decision?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Adoption agencies currently look at candidates more deeply than "married or not?" and that shouldn't change.

Agreed, certainly. You won't catch me arguing to loosen adoption guidelines, except to include homosexuals once they are allowed to marry.

You jump hoops to adopt a child, and given the responsibility you're taking on, that's correct. But why on earth should being married or not have ANY influence in that decision?

Because marriage is an extra layer of protection and a sign of commitment to the relationship and the household. It's not much protection any more, but it's still better than nothing.

Also, unless the couple in question is legally prohibited from marrying-- which, you'll note, is a state of affairs I am opposed to-- it is among the simplest and least expensive of the hoops that prospective adopters must jump through. If they are unwilling to be legally and civilly bound to each other, in a secular court of law, because of the oppressive garbage practiced by some churches, then they have no business adopting children.

There's only one good excuse for not being married if you're planning on raising children with someone.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Agreed, certainly. You won't catch me arguing to loosen adoption guidelines, except to include homosexuals once they are allowed to marry.



Because marriage is an extra layer of protection and a sign of commitment to the relationship and the household. It's not much protection any more, but it's still better than nothing.

Also, unless the couple in question is legally prohibited from marrying-- which, you'll note, is a state of affairs I am opposed to-- it is among the simplest and least expensive of the hoops that prospective adopters must jump through. If they are unwilling to be legally and civilly bound to each other, in a secular court of law, because of the oppressive garbage practiced by some churches, then they have no business adopting children.

There's only one good excuse for not being married if you're planning on raising children with someone.

Sorry korimyr, but impose your values on others.
I love my boyfriend, but I would no sooner want to marry anybody as fly to the moon. My personal choice in a free country. To suggest I'm somehow less committed because I don't want to go through an outdated ceremony which to me is no more than meaningless symbolism, is frankly bordering on insulting. Extra layer of protection? Sign of committment? This is EXACTLY where adoption authorities will fall into false traps.

The slimeball that bought his Asian bride from a catalogue can put on the stable, happy married front, and adopt a child that would be little more than a designer accessory like the wife he purchased. We cannot see marriage as a benchmark - it can demonstrate love and commitment, but it also may not, just as many unmarried couples can be a solid as a rock. Sorry, but I find your analysis very black and white, and the world just ain't like that!

 

[tecoyah]

My wife and I both agreed to get married......for the tax break.


Before that we were the same couple we are today...hmmmmm

 

[talloulou]

I love my boyfriend, but I would no sooner want to marry anybody as fly to the moon.

Why is that?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Why is that?

I'm an independent, professional working woman who can make my own way in the world. Much as I love and admire my man, I would no sooner identify myself as Mrs. X as expect him to identify himeslf as "my" husband. I don't feel I need legal recognition, bits of paper, ceremonies and rings to prove my love to him. A personal choice. I respect the choices of those who prefer marriage, religious or civil, to free union. My point is that in free societies, there is always more than just ONE way, and being married (for genuine love or for tax breaks or a passport or for any number of sham reasons) shouldn't IMO be viewed as essential criteria for adoption.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I'm an independent, professional working woman who can make my own way in the world.

And if you're that attached to your independence, you have no business raising children.

If you think a husband will chain you down...

Much as I love and admire my man, I would no sooner identify myself as Mrs. X as expect him to identify himeslf as "my" husband.

You already identify him as your man. You do realize that the linguistic difference between "my man"/"my woman" and "my husband"/"my wife" is unique to English?

Sorry korimyr, but impose your values on others.

I have never denied, nor been ashamed of, my willingness to impose my values upon others. Maybe if other people had better values in the first place, I wouldn't feel the need to do so.

To suggest I'm somehow less committed because I don't want to go through an outdated ceremony which to me is no more than meaningless symbolism, is frankly bordering on insulting.

I don't give a damn what you think about wedding ceremonies. You don't need a ceremony to be legally married.

I am saying that you are less committed because there are no legal or socially-recognized bonds between you and your boyfriend-- and because you are unwilling to forge those bonds. And I am not in any way suggesting that it is wrong of you to choose not to be wed-- I'm not married myself, and I don't have any plans of getting married any time soon.

But if you are unwilling to tie yourself to a full-grown, independent man-- in an equal partnership or otherwise-- then deciding to have children, who are utterly helpless and utterly dependent upon you, is irresponsible, immoral, and wrong.

If you're insulted by that, so be it. I make no apologies.

There's a difference between being forced into single parenthood-- or having to choose between a broken home and an unsafe one-- and choosing to raise children alone because you're unwilling to commit.

The slimeball that bought his Asian bride from a catalogue can ... adopt a child that would be little more than a designer accessory like the wife he purchased.

And you think I wouldn't stamp that out if I could? Compare the number of new single mothers to the number of fiancé visas issued every year, and tell me which group of children I ought to be more worried for.

Hell, limit the comparison to underaged single mothers.

Sorry, but I find your analysis very black and white, and the world just ain't like that!

The world may not be, but the law must be, or it's no law at all.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

And you think I wouldn't stamp that out if I could?

But these are exactly the couples who will put on a good show and slip through the net because they appear to be a solid married couple, and far from stamping it out, you'll encourage it.

Your assumption that the bonds I've forged with my man, my partner (whatever you want to call him, but I don't subscribe to traditional husband/wife ideals) are less deep because we're not married is patronising and insulting. I have no desire to raise kids, but again, your assumption that independent women can't do so very well is also way off mark. I've known widows, single mums, and very independent minded women in couples do so extremely well. Let's examine each case on its merits, not on the strength of a mariage certificate, which may mean everything OR nothing to the owners.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Your assumption that the bonds I've forged with my man, my partner (whatever you want to call him, but I don't subscribe to traditional husband/wife ideals) are less deep because we're not married is patronising and insulting.

I've already explained this. While the bonds may emotionally be as deep, there is no social or legal recognition of those bonds and there is no force holding you together if your feelings change.

I'm not slighting your relationship with him. It's just not sufficient to form a stable household.

If you're offended by this, you may want to consider why you're so repulsed by a legal document.

I have no desire to raise kids, but again, your assumption that independent women can't do so very well is also way off mark.

And yet, most sociological studies of single parenthood demonstrate the validity of my assumptions. I am standing on solid ground here.

Let's examine each case on its merits, not on the strength of a marriage certificate, which may mean everything OR nothing to the owners.

It doesn't matter what the marriage certificate means to the owners. I've tried to make that clear. What matters is what the marriage certificate means to the law, and the reinforcing effect that it has upon the stability of the relationship.

And as I've already said, I'm fully in favor of investigating would-be adoptive couples before allowing them to receive custody of a child. I'm just not willing to ignore the fact that a prospective couple might have absolutely nothing preventing them from splitting up and leaving that child with only one parent.

It's bad enough how frequently that happens to natural-born children, and they don't also have to deal with foster homes.