web analytics

GAY ADOPTION

By David Vance On October 18th, 2012

The proposition is simple. Should children be adopted by a gay couple?

A High Court ruling that a ban on gay and unmarried couples adopting children in NI is unlawful, is to be challenged by Health Minister Edwin Poots. At present a single gay or lesbian person can adopt but a couple in a civil partnership cannot. Earlier on Thursday, Mr Justice Treacy said the ban discriminated against those in civil partnerships and breached their right to family life.

I agree with Poots for once and entirely disagree with Treacy and his judgement.

I do not believe that it is appropriate for children to be adopted by a gay couple. Whilst I do not dispute that a gay couple can provide a loving environment – I am sure they stand as much a chance of doing so as a hetero couple – the fact remains that children should have a Dad and a Mum…..not Two Dads or Two Mums. The dynamic is wrong, the ethics questionable and the consequences worrying. On Mother’s Day, who gets the card? There are plenty of hetero couples who can provide a loving home and it would be better that the law was altered in order to make this desirable outcome more likely.

54 Responses to “GAY ADOPTION”

  1. “and the consequences worrying” — that’s putting it mildly!

    This ‘experiment’ with children has only really got going, and there’s not enough statistics yet to establish whether it is actually working, especially when they reach adolescence.
    What IS already known though, is that gay couple partnerships are as prone to breakups as normal marriages, ie close to 50%.
    So who would then take custody… him or him, or her or her?
    The whole thing reeks of decadence.

  2. David,
    Agreed. This is social engineering at its worst. Increasingly pressure is being brought to bear so that we all accept what common sense and nature tells us cannot be right. Even those here who espouse evolution have to accept that in all of nature reproducing mammals follow the male/female principle.

  3. Agit8ed, nobody is suggesting that gays should make each other pregnant.

  4. I know Noel, but the role modelling is still thought to be important. Even social workers accept that.

  5. Once again – keep in mind these children are the product of failed heterosexual unions. One has to be simplistic to argue the issue is who gets a mother’s day card.

  6. One has to be simplistic to argue the issue is who gets a mother’s day card.

    Welcome to ATW.

  7. Whilst I totally agree that all other things being equal, a child is better off being brought up by a man- woman couple, what is the rationale that says a single person is better than an unmarried couple, (including gay couple).

    I don’t have any particular knowledge of the subject but I get the distinct impression that, whilst there are many couples to choose from in terms of adopting healthy non disabled babies, older kids and less than perfect babies don’t have many prospective homes vieing for them.

  8. Welcome to ATW.

    So what exactly do you want, Fews? A long-winded thesis which would arrive at your desired conclusion, this being that gay couples are as suited as the natural male-female couples for rearing (no pun intended but the risk is there) of children? The first two comments on this thread are irrefutable in my opinion so if any of the ‘pro-equality’ people wish to make a case, those are the two posts which must be grappled with.

  9. Aileen,
    In a sense parenting is a “learning on the job” skill.
    Trying to make babies both easy and pleasurable.
    Nursing, nurturing, protecting, providing, educating and acting as a good role model, much more difficult.
    Same sex animals do not reproduce. I am not saying that a single foster parent cannot do a good job of caring for a child, but they can only provide love and a good example of their sex, not the other sex.
    So ONLY heterosexuals can reproduce unaided, and nature decrees that the child needs the input of both parents to help them grow into balanced and mature adults. Two male adoptive parents means two male role models. Ditto, two females.
    Handicapped children can be an awful lot of work, depending on the level of impairment this can mean that other children will lose out as so much attention is directed towards the needy child.
    Older children (my wife is managing a children’s home now) are also difficult, because in many ways the child’s persona is set; any damage done will be manifesting in personal attitudes and attitudes to others.
    A teenage boy who has been beaten as a child by his father will be experiencing rejection, lack of self worth, anger and oftentimes will try to recreate that relationship with other adult males. This can turn into bullying of women and weaker males, building the wrong kind of self esteem through control of others, or even depression and self harming.
    Which validates what the Jesuits (attributed to St. Ignatius of Loyola or St. Francis Xavier), used to say about,
    “Give me the child until he is seven and I care not who has him thereafter.”

    I prefer that version because I think it more closely mirrors the experiences of foster parents, adoptive parents and those working with children in care.

  10. Agit8ed – If you are advocating turning children over to the Jesuits or other clergy, no thanks.

  11. “Agit8ed – If you are advocating turning children over to the Jesuits or other clergy, no thanks.”

    Are you being sardonic?
    Droll?
    Sarcastic?

    I really don’t know.
    I was using that as an illustration of the fact that what a child experiences in the early formative years-whether deliberate or not; is what shapes their view of themselves and others.
    It can be repaired or modified, but the memories good and bad, will remain.
    Which is part of the reason I say that Christians are “works in progress.”

  12. Agit – you have over-egged the pudding. The first two comments are hurdles which the advocates of homosexual adoption cannot jump so why not let them stand. Your most recent comment has unnecessarily presented a target as we see at 9.27 above.

  13. Agit8ed – I am pointing out that you are wandering about without a coherent point. Children’s early development is important – is that a news flash?

  14. Allan,

    Read my 9:39 and tell me if you still think I over egged the pud! If you do please explain why.

  15. Mahons,

    It links to Aileen’s
    “I don’t have any particular knowledge of the subject but I get the distinct impression that, whilst there are many couples to choose from in terms of adopting healthy non disabled babies, older kids and less than perfect babies don’t have many prospective homes vieing for them.”

  16. If you say so.

  17. I DO say so.
    Probably why I started off saying,

    Agit8ed, on October 19th, 2012 at 9:16 am Said:

    “AILEEN,
    In a sense parenting is a “learning on the job” skill….”

    I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps I only thought I was responding to Aileen….

  18. Allan@ –

    I think you effectively removed yourself from any productive discussion on this topic with this totally ill-informed, unfounded, homophobic comment:

    ‘… gay couples are as suited as the natural male-female couples for rearing (no pun intended but the risk is there) of children?’

    don’t you?

    As to the first two comments – of course, for reproduction, male and female are needed. That’s basic biology. But rearing the children? Why does it have to be male/female again? Many species in the animal kingdom leave it to one of the biological parents to rear the young. Quite often it’s the male. Is this wrong? No. It’s nature. Just as at least 1700 different species in the animal kingdom display Homosexual tendencies of one type or another. It happens in nature, therefore it’s natural.

    You’re the one who always produces stats and evidence, so can you show me the evidence that Gay individuals or couples are bad parents? Or at least that more Gay couples treat their adopted children any worse than Hetero couples?

    Also, what everyone seems to have ignored here, is that the ruling also includes unmarried couples. Do you seriously believe that a couple who stand in church and make a promise to each other, are in some way automatically better parents than a couple who make the same commitment in the privacy of their own home?

  19. Isn’t it weird that a lifestyle practiced by just 0.3% of the population should necessitate such special treatment. Why our society bends over backwards to accommodate the wishes of these people. In common with radical muslim trouble makers (Choudhary, Hookie etc) these people occupy a totally disporportionate amount of Government time and taxpayer money creating very specific legislation just for them. Which is then used by militant trouble making offence seekers to create trouble for the vast majority.

    Just saying thats all.

  20. ‘… these people occupy a totally disporportionate amount of Government time and taxpayer money creating very specific legislation just for them.’

    Unmarried couples? Oh no, sorry. You were just focusing on the tiny percentage of Homosexual couples who want to adopt, weren’t you?

    It’s funny how a change in the law, which gives some loving couples an opportunity to adopt and raise children in a loving, family environment, can cause such a disproportionate reaction in some people.

    Just saying that’s all.

  21. Seimi,

    “It is held that parental investment starts from the point when the male and female copulate and the egg is fertilized. The minimal obligatory parental investment for a human male is to impregnate the woman and the time it takes to copulate. On the other hand, the minimal obligatory parental investment for a human female is her egg, nine months of pregnancy and delivery. In that case the female investment outweighs the male investment. The difference of minimal obligatory investment between males and females suggests that the amount of investment and effort put into mating and parenting will also differ. In theory, a man could impregnate any reproductive age woman who is fertile, leading to a large number of offspring from the male. In contrast, a woman can only have one offspring in nine months, limiting the amount of children she can have. This suggests that males should be more competitive between one another and women will be more ‘choosy’ because of the amount of investment, searching for the male with best fitness and good genes to pass onto her offspring (Trivers 1972). Such examples are relevant and seen in non-Western societies where men are allowed to have multiple wives, leading to a large number of offspring for example in Arabian families and some African tribes.”
    from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_investment.

    If amongst primates and humans offspring can ONLY be produced by one male and one female, it follows that the offspring will learn from both parents what their role is as a male offspring or female offspring. (Quite apart from the urgings of sexuality: i.e. a male has one set of urges, a female another.)
    In human society the same principle applies. So a boy child learns from BOTH parents how his mother responds to and treats his father, and how his father responds to and treats his mother.
    It really ain’t rocket science.

  22. Re your homosexuality in animals
    comment…n.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

    What we think of as homosexual behaviour may have quite a different connotation amongst animals.
    How many predatory homosexual giraffes or wart hogs have been observed in nature? How many homosexual couplings with multiple partners have been evidenced?

  23. link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

  24. ‘So a boy child learns from BOTH parents how his mother responds to and treats his father, and how his father responds to and treats his mother.’

    Or

    So a boy child learns from BOTH parents how one treats the other?

    What’s the point of your post, Agi? I already said above about biology. Nothing that you have written explains Homosexuality, nor does it state that Homosexuals are precluded from being parents.

    ‘What we think of as homosexual behaviour may have quite a different connotation amongst animals.’

    Right, so the facts don’t suit, so change the meaning of the facts? Ok.

    ‘How many predatory homosexual giraffes or wart hogs have been observed in nature?’

    No idea. Very few I’d say. Then again, the number of predatory Homosexual humans would be low too, probably on a par with predatory Heterosexual humans. Unless you’re trying to do the same thing allan did, which is to equate Homosexuality with Paedophilia? If not, why the use of the word ‘predatory’?

  25. Seimi,
    As far as I am concerned some are born homosexual and some learn it. But if we are talking about reproduction of the species, homosexuality is a dead end because they cannot reproduce.
    So are homosexuals less than human?
    Of course not.
    Can they care for and foster children? Yes, but like a single heterosexual they cannot provide the opposite sex point of view and characteristics.
    Regarding homosexual adoption I do not accept the concept of homosexual marriage, so a homosexual couple having children is a nonsense and unfair to the children concerned.
    Is that clear enough? There can be no such thing as a homosexual married couple having children. There will ALWAYS have to be a third party to provide the semen or the eggs. This is against the natural process.
    Secondly, it is also obvious that HUMAN children need far more than food and clothing. They need boundaries, they need help to construct a world view. Then you get into the realm of political/philosophical/religious teachings which will help both the parents and the children.

  26. Seimi, on October 19th, 2012 at 10:49 am Said:
    It’s funny how a change in the law, which gives some loving couples an opportunity to adopt and raise children in a loving, family environment, can cause such a disproportionate reaction in some people.

    Just saying that’s all.

    Indeed it is. I posted but the once and this is your…how many and counting Seimi?

  27. ‘As far as I am concerned…’

    So it’s just your opinion rather than fact? Fine.

    ‘…some are born homosexual and some learn it.’

    Learn it!? From who!?

    ‘But if we are talking about reproduction of the species…’

    But we weren’t. The thread is about Gay adoption, apparently…

    ‘Regarding homosexual adoption I do not accept the concept of homosexual marriage, so a homosexual couple having children is a nonsense and unfair to the children concerned.’

    So again, it’s your opinion. Again – fine. Just don’t present it as fact.

    ‘Is that clear enough?’

    It’s clear that that is your opinion, yes.

    ‘There can be no such thing as a homosexual married couple having children.’

    I know, hence some couple’s desire to adopt. Can Homosexual men and women not experience paternal or maternal feelings then? Should they be barred from adopting a child because of this?

    ‘… it is also obvious that HUMAN children need far more than food and clothing. They need boundaries, they need help to construct a world view. Then you get into the realm of political/philosophical/religious teachings which will help both the parents and the children.’

    So, are you saying Gay couples can only provide food and clothing? Can they not set boundaries, or help construct a world view (possibly one which encourages more tolerance than that shown by some on here?). What if the Gay couple are rich, well-balanced, mature, deeply committed Christians? Should they still be denied? Or would they need to also vote Tory? Or is there no set of circumstances under which you would support Gay couples adopting?

    DIG – good comeback, you must have given yourself a high five after you typed that gem. Imagine, someone writing more than one post on a blog site…

  28. Nope – nor have I strayed into ‘hissy fit’ territory. Remaining calm and dispassionate. I merly comment on the tyranny of the very very small minority.

    Perhaps you might care to explain why your so vexed?

  29. Seimi,
    “I know, hence some couple’s desire to adopt. Can Homosexual men and women not experience paternal or maternal feelings then? Should they be barred from adopting a child because of this?”
    Now THAT’s worth discussing, and I would be more than willing to do so because I have never met or heard from homosexuals who were willing to do so. But Seimi, that couldn’t be done on line. I would happily engage with people face to face.
    So let’s drop the squaring up bit, and i would love to participate in a group discussion.]Just bear in mind I would be there as a heterosexual man who would love to have fathered and been the father of children, but decided not to take the scientific route to fatherhood, and still don’t regret that decision…

  30. Did someone stray into ‘hissy fit’ territory?

    By the ‘very very small minority’ do you mean Gay couples AND unmarried couples? I doubt the percentage of unmarried couples in Britain and Ireland is ‘very very small’.

    I’m ‘vexed’, as you put it, because you, like others here, seem to have focused only the the Gay couples, which is why I said the responses of some were disproportionate.

    Or perhaps I’ve picked you up wrong, and you feel that unmarried, Heterosexual couples ‘ occupy a totally disporportionate amount of Government time and taxpayer money creating very specific legislation just for them.’ ?

    Perhaps you compare unmarried, Heterosexual couples to ‘ radical muslim trouble makers (Choudhary, Hookie etc)’

    and perhaps it is ‘ the tyranny of the very very small minority’ of unmarried Heterosexual couples that makes you comment, albeit ‘ Remaining calm and dispassionate.’

  31. Fair enough Agi. Just bear in mind that I would be there as a heterosexual man, father of three, and stepfather to two more, who has absolutely no problem with Gay couples (or unmarried couples for that matter) trying to adopt children. My only concerns with any couple or individual adopting would be whether they would make good parents, and whether the child would be loved, protected and nurtured. I don’t believe that the sexual orientation (or marital status) of the couple come into it.

  32. A couple of points.

    Wouldn’t it be better for an adopted child and greater society to have two adults legally and financially responsible for that child’s long term well being?

    And why would anyone think that a single gay person wouldn’t date, socialize or eventually commit to a relationship with another gay person? Do you think by limiting custody to one gay person the child will be shielded from forming relationships with other gay people?

  33. “And why would anyone think that a single gay person wouldn’t date, socialize or eventually commit to a relationship with another gay person? Do you think by limiting custody to one gay person the child will be shielded from forming relationships with other gay people?”

    Er no.
    I think in that case it is more likely that the child would then be denied the choice of deciding what kind of adult male/female they were going to be, and find themselves being pushed towards an unnatural sexual orientation.

  34. ‘I think in that case it is more likely that the child would then be denied the choice of deciding what kind of adult male/female they were going to be, and find themselves being pushed towards an unnatural sexual orientation.’

    Is that what you meant earlier by people ‘learning’ to be Gay? It’s nonsense. A person is either born Gay or they’re not.

    I work with someone who is Gay, in a long term, loving relationship, who is constantly giving off about their daughter’s interest in boys – not because they feel she should like girls more, but purely because it’s taking her mind off her school work.

  35. Seimi, on October 19th, 2012 at 2:06 pm Said:
    Did someone stray into ‘hissy fit’ territory?

    By the ‘very very small minority’ do you mean Gay couples AND unmarried couples? I doubt the percentage of unmarried couples in Britain and Ireland is ‘very very small’.

    I’m ‘vexed’, as you put it, because you, like others here, seem to have focused only the the Gay couples, which is why I said the responses of some were disproportionate.

    Or perhaps I’ve picked you up wrong, and you feel that unmarried, Heterosexual couples ‘ occupy a totally disporportionate amount of Government time and taxpayer money creating very specific legislation just for them.’ ?

    Perhaps you compare unmarried, Heterosexual couples to ‘ radical muslim trouble makers (Choudhary, Hookie etc)’

    and perhaps it is ‘ the tyranny of the very very small minority’ of unmarried Heterosexual couples that makes you comment, albeit ‘ Remaining calm and dispassionate.’

    Calm down, calm down, calm down.
    This article is about Gay Adoption. Did I nmiss where it mentions unmarried couples?

    I have already very clearly said where the 1.5% being a very very small minority comes from. The 1.5% seeking to impose their rights over and bove the 98.5% of people who are NOT gay.
    Perhaps both you and Stomewall need to understand.

    The vast majority of people are NOT gay…get over it.

    I dislike dogma and your reeking of it from where I’m standing.

    You need to accept without question…
    Being gay does not automaticaly qualify you to adopt.
    Being gay does not automatically mean you are right about everything.
    Being gay does not give you superoir rights to anyone else.

    I find it very telling that you amongst others are arguing this from your viewpoint. I want /we want etc even we demand etc.

    Anyone asked what the prospective adoptee wants? Isn’t that far more to the point?

    Frankly where people play hide the salami (and who with) is of no interest to me at all. I just detest professional ‘offense seekers’.

  36. Seimi,

    Is that what you meant earlier by people ‘learning’ to be Gay? It’s nonsense. A person is either born Gay or they’re not.”
    I respectfully suggest that you do some research on that. I met gays in the Merchant Navy back in the ’60s who said that their mother dressed them in girls clothes and told them all sorts of things about their father’s failings.
    I worked in a housing association where some of the tenants told me that they didn’t know their father or were rejected by him, and that was true of many of their friends.
    Whatever the examples though Seimi, the natural reality is that children are begotten by a man and a woman, and that the highest and the best we can want for those children is love, stability and a world view on which to build their lives.
    Heterosexuals do not feel the need to have Heterosexual Parades, or to dress up as a parody of the opposite sex.
    Ask yourself or your friends how many homosexuals see themselves as being either male or female. Dominant or submissive?

  37. Agi, I have only have three personal anecdotes to share of the gay couples that I know who are raising adopted children. All five of the kids (3 girls, two boys) have grown up to be pretty normal heterosexual teenagers.

    All of these children were adopted as either infants or toddlers, all are bi-racial, a few have learning disabilities after being born to crack mothers. Of the 3 legal parents, two are lesbians, one is a gay men – they have sole custody because Texas will not allow gay couples to adopt, even though their long-term (15-20 years) partners were involved in the decision to adopt and are actively involved raising these children.

    I see zero downside for these kids who, while being raised in a non-traditional family, are so much better off with two loving, responsible adults than being raised by a single parent. Or worse, shunted through the foster care system, unloved and parent-less.

  38. ‘Did I nmiss where it mentions unmarried couples?’

    You missed it in the second line, here;

    ‘A High Court ruling that a ban on gay and unmarried couples adopting children in NI’

    ‘The vast majority of people are NOT gay…get over it.’

    Get over what?

    ‘I dislike dogma and your reeking of it from where I’m standing.’

    How so? Care to explain?

    ‘You need to accept without question…
    Being gay does not automaticaly qualify you to adopt.
    Being gay does not automatically mean you are right about everything.
    Being gay does not give you superoir rights to anyone else.’

    I know all of that. Where did I say otherwise?

    ‘I find it very telling that you amongst others are arguing this from your viewpoint. I want /we want etc even we demand etc.’

    Where did I demand anything? Please show me. And what is my ‘viewpoint’?

    ‘Anyone asked what the prospective adoptee wants? Isn’t that far more to the point?’

    In most cases of adoption, the ‘adoptee’ is usually very young. Are you suggesting an infant should be quizzed as to the preferres sexual orientation of his/her’s adoptive parents?

    ‘Frankly where people play hide the salami (and who with) is of no interest to me at all. I just detest professional ‘offense seekers’.

    Yet you were the one who wrote;

    ‘Isn’t it weird that a lifestyle practiced by just 0.3% of the population should necessitate such special treatment. Why our society bends over backwards to accommodate the wishes of these people. In common with radical muslim trouble makers (Choudhary, Hookie etc) these people occupy a totally disporportionate amount of Government time and taxpayer money creating very specific legislation just for them. Which is then used by militant trouble making offence seekers to create trouble for the vast majority.’

    ‘Calm down, calm down, calm down.’

    Perfectly calm here. Perhaps you should take your own advice. That way you might not miss out on important snippets of information…

  39. ‘I respectfully suggest that you do some research on that.’

    Agi, did you hear what that pot just called that kettle?

  40. Aileen,
    As I said we see what we see, but as a Christian I believe the ideal is that heterosexuals have children, and anything less than that is less than that.
    At the end of a very long day, we either believe that God in love told us how to live, or no one did and we do as we see fit.

  41. Seimi,
    No.

  42. OK Seimi,
    So gay couples and unmarried couples both cannot adopt.

    Well you’ve got complete equality right there. Whadya still bitchin about?

  43. ‘So gay couples and unmarried couples both cannot adopt.’

    At the moment, no. But that could, and in my opinion, should, change. It’s not a demand, it’s just my opinion.

    ‘Well you’ve got complete equality right there.’

    Which only goes to show your complete lack of understanding of the term ‘Equality’.

    ‘Whadya still bitchin about?’

    Saying that some people deserve the same ‘equality’ as others isn’t ‘bitchin’. You should really just give up now, Dogisgreat. You’ve demonstrated your prejudices and lack of knowledge adequately for one afternoon, don’t you think?

  44. Seimi,
    Dogis is as entitled to express his views as a Northern Ireland Republican/Sinn Fein/IRA supporter is theirs.
    Being committed to the principle of equality is one thing, but is blanket equality for everybody and everything always right?
    I think not, and I think you think that too.

  45. “‘Anyone asked what the prospective adoptee wants? Isn’t that far more to the point?’”
    With the very greatest of respect to you, if it’s a baby or a toddler, how would it know? If it’s an older child, would not Child Protection have something to say?
    The only logical way to do it is from a baby, but no matter how many consenting adults were involved in that decision, the child is still being deprived of a mother or father figure.

  46. Wow what a big argument over what should be seen as a simple common sense process. Single people or couples should be judged as suitable adopters purely on the basis of their personal characters resources and abilities and proven expereinces, not judged purely by the single characteristic of sexual orientation. All judgements should be based on assesing everyone as individual humans not herded into acceptable or unacceptable groups.

  47. Agit8ed – Who exactly are you talkng about? Me? When did I say I supported any of that? And more to the point – What the f*ck has it got to do with this discussion?
    You, and Dogisgreat, and others here, are against Gay couples adopting children, purely because they are Gay. I pointed out his prejudice and his lack of understanding of the issue. He hadnt even read the full 4 or 5 lines of the original post properly.
    And judging by your replies – neither did you. Try reading what Colm has written above this post. Thats my view as well, and it really annoys me when the likes of you, Dog and others try and dress up your prejudices as principles.

  48. Just to clarify, when I refered to man-woman couple, I just meant domestic partnership. Which could be siblings or friends, or even a gay male and female ;)

    Agi

    What has a gay couple not being able to reproduce on their own got to do with adopting? An infertile hetrosexual couple can’t either. Should they be barred?

  49. Seimi

    “also, what everyone seems to have ignored here…”

    See my 6.23

  50. Agi

    What is your 3.22 about and why is it addressed to me?

  51. Dogisgreat

    Banning people is “special treatment”, not treating them on the same basis.

  52. To those who claim that gays have demanded and been given ‘special rights’ over and above heterosexuals – please give one real example.

  53. Aileen-

    Re. Your 6.23

    You’re quite right. Apologies :)

  54. Seimi

    Accepted :)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.