Category: Let's talk
Gay and unmarried couples are to be allowed to adopt in Scotland.A controversial shake-up of adoption laws-the 1st major changes for 25 years! {Disgraceful! That we have had to wait so long} was announced on Thursday June 9th by the Scottish Executive.And in a move that has sparked outrage ministers have backed the conclusion of a 4yr review,which calls for a relaxtion of the law, which allows only married couples to adopt. The move follows a big drop in adoptions in Scotland.Deputy Minister Euan Robson said "Any couples being assesed as adopters would undergo a rigorous examination of their relationship to make sure it provided stability for the child and to explore their parenting skills"
I know most will disagree, but personally I think that's fucked up. I don't in any way or under any circumstance think gay couples should be allowed to adopt.
no actually I agree. i am by no means homophobic, but personally I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt either.
I think we need to ask ourselves is it not better that a young person be provided with a loving home environment and having persons in their life who are loving and supportive rather than demanding that a young person be placed in a home with both a mother/father figure and perhaps never finding that particular family? So many homes as it is are fragmented with one parent leaving or really never having been there in the first place… Many children are already being raised by say a Grandparent so the what is considered “traditional” family is almost a thing of the past. Back some time ago there was a documentary showing gay couples adopting a child/children into their homes. Certainly any couple, be they male/male, female/female, or male/female needs to be assessed to determine that they can provide a stable home environment and have within their abilities good skills in parenting. You know I am thinking about the “hard to adopt ones” like say youth who are near the age of being a teenager or are already a teen and what would be more needful? Like to say keep the youth/teen in an orphanage/group home setting because there is no female/male couple that wants them or rather allow that one to go to where they are wanted and will find those willing to share and communicate and listen to them? Life is not easy and if there is a couple, be they gay or straight and they have a place to offer a child and willing to provide the care necessary then who am I to stand in the way? Also I know there are laws that are being relaxed in some areas to where it needs not to be a “couple” rather say simply an “individual” who desires to provide a home and care to a child and they have the means to do so… should they be turned away from being one to adopt because they are say a family of one and not part of being a couple?
all i can say is there isn't any gay children which came from a straight home right?
Well, I think it's fantastic, and good on the Scotts! Progress is slow, but it's slow everywhere, and in some cases, over here for example, we seem to be going backwards. *sigh* Oh, and not to open the standard Gay-addoption debate up further, since it's just messy, but I have to object to this idea that the nuclear family model is in any way traditional, to anywhere at all. Although traditional is a loaded enough term in itself. But I've yet to see any evidence which convinces me that the western, nuclear model is of most benefit to anyone.
connie you raise some good points but what we need to bear in mind is that children who are placed up for adoption invariably come from very screwed up backgrounds, have often been the victims of abuce and often have a lot of emotional and psychological problems. what those children need is as close to a normal family as they can get, and the chance to be a norml child in a normal family environment. Now I'm not saying that gay couples would not provide the best for the children they chose to adopt, but being adopted by a same sex couple definitely has its drawbacks. the reality is, children are cruel, very, very cruel, and to place a child in a home with a same sex couple is just setting that child up to become a victim of its peers when it attends school. how will the neighbourhood bullies react, do you think, to a child whose parents are, not only not that child's biological parents, but gay as well?
The thing is that if a child is in an orphanage/group home/institutional setting then what is “normal” about that? So a child would already in many aspects already be in a situation of being bullied I should think. There will always be the one who bullies others but to use this as an excuse for having a child loose out on an opportunity to have a home-life what is the good in that? I think one point is that those couples that are straight are NOT adopting therefore leaving many youth in institutions, (and I should think that many times these youth become the “run-aways” at tender ages choosing to live rather “on the streets” than to be in an institution) so then the question is… Who would be willing to adopt? I mean do we condemn children to institutional life if there are no straight couples that want them simply because of the possible behaviour of bullies when a child could be in a home setting with persons who care about them? I don’t understand…. I know from the documentary I talked about the gay couples involved were in fact those ones actively involved in the schools and their various programs. They met with the teachers and local parents and were in a place of being on good terms with a vast portion of their local community and the concern of bullies was for the most part a worry that came to have no merit as the children of homes where they were adopted were in fact given to fit in, not only in their new home but also as a part of the community. Good it would be that all children were born into loving homes where they were wanted…
It all comes down to morals and ethics.
<smiles at SB> glad I'm not alone on this one.
and morally it is wrong. A gay couple cannot physically have children for a reason. It is not natural and why force something into existence that isn't natural and right?
To go back to SB's point, about adopted kids being the victims of bullying, I agree it's a tough one, and adopted/surrogate kids of gay couples at the moment aren't common, and therefor, probably cop quite a bit of flac. But consider that not that long ago, single parents, and mixed-race parentage were also socially unacceptable, and cause for ridicule in the playground, and I think most people will agree that moving on from that is a good thing. Social standards for family aren't set in stone, and I think what adult society accepts as OK will be seen as OK in the playground as well. And I don't mean to ignore MP's point about the morality of it, but I don't think that's something that can be debated. Whether someone personally thinks something is right or wrong is entirely up to them, and I don't think it's anyone's business. Whether they feel the need to extend those beliefs to the restriction of others' behaviour though... I think that's another matter. Just my two cents, Erin
Well, I think there's a lot of good points here. I used to be against gay couple adoptions but have come to realize that, as connie says, it's very prejudice to completely exclude gay couple adoption as an option in a situation where a child is desperately looking for foster parents. I think them being a gay couple should of course be considered as part of the adoption review and its negative aspects taken into account when the child's case is reviewed. Wouldn't gay parents be better than abusive parents or people with alcohol addiction or, even in some cases, single parents that want to adopt but work all day and leave the raising of the children to the social system. I see the drawbacks and I think there are differences between gay and straight couples in some ways and especially how they are perceived by society but I don't think we can just use a blanket exclusion any more, there are too many needy children out there and if someone wants to give them the home and affection they need that can't be completely overlooked.
Cheers
-B
actually you do raise one good point and I totally agree that given the choice between a same sex couple or a single parent adopting, if the same sex couple wanted to, and were able to give a loving home they should be favoured over the single parent. I do not think, under any circumstances, that single people should be allowed to adopt.
but there are that many prejudices though, as a rule for instance, in this country, disabled people are not allowed to adopt, I know a blind couple who tried to adopt and were turned down. they were told they could foster, but only disabled children, because, if they were to foster a non disabled child and the parents found out their child was being fostered by disabled people, it could cause problems. well in my view, if your child has had to go into care, you forego the right to decide where it goes...
Yeah that's really stupid, I mean if an independent body (government agency for instance) decides parents/people are fit to adopt then it should not be up to the original parents to decide whether they approve or not if they cared so much in the first lace they should keep their own child.
I think blind people could be as good foster parents as any, as exemplified by your good self in fact and many other people on here and in what we call the real world. ;)
I think it's good that hoosexual couples can adopt in Scotland and that should be the law everywhere. Yes it means the children will be brought up by two people of the same genda, but so what! It could be argued that they need a mother figure or father figure, but if their parents are split and for whatever reason one doesn't see them they won't have that. As long as the adopters of children behave in a responsible manor towards them they shouldn't be prevented from adopting. I think that people who have children and are unable then to bring them up should be indefinitely prevented from ever having children again.
well to an extent I agree although I think there are some exceptions e.g. a young teenage girl who becomes pregnant and gives the baby up because she feels that it would be best for that child. other than that though, I think if you have given up one child you shouldn't be allowed to have any more. I also think that in a sense about abortion, that if you have more than one abortion you shouldn't be allowed to have children in the future - after all, a baby isn't something you can just get rid of when it's not convenient.
Dragonfire you ignorant fool...I am bisexual and came from a straight home as did several of my gay friends, what a pathetic close minded attitude ..and why can't a loving secure Gay couple rehabilitate an abused child, love is love, so why should gay couples be demonised and feared by the adoption agencies when 1,000's of children have and are being placed in straight homes to be systematically abused, I've seen the results of this and they are awful..you could at least force open your narrow minds more than the few inches you deem adequate and look at the complete picture........
Resonant thankyou at least you saw the positive side of this historic move...
Sugarbaby you really have outdone yourself I cannot believe you would..no wait I can, judging by your past behaviour on this site...If disabled people want to adopt, and they are able to cope with an energetic mischevious toddler, then I would say why not.Have you forgotten that in certain circumstances, adoption may be the only way that some disabled couples, can have children...what if you had applied to adopt Nathan and the agency had refused how would you feel..
you might want to read my post again goblin - i did not say that disabled people should not be allowed to adopt, what I said was, in this country, disabled people are not permitted to adopt and that someone i knew was told that all they could foster was disabled children.
Wow, some people are responding without even beginning to read the osts, did you not see the sarcastic side of df's post, for someone who writes poetry and fiction I'd think you'd pay more attention to what you read before throwing insults.
cheers
-B
And I quote .if they were to foster a non disabled child and the parents found out their child was being fostered by disabled people it could cause problems..you are infering that disabled people,are as far as the agencies are concerned, unfit to foster and/or adopt children...in the case of fostering, the birth parents are not told where their child is, to minimise the risk, of the child being abducted or harmed..
And I quote .if they were to foster a non disabled child and the parents found out their child was being fostered by disabled people it could cause problems..you are infering that disabled people,are as far as the agencies are concerned, unfit to foster and/or adopt children...in the case of fostering, the birth parents are not told where their child is, to minimise the risk, of the child being abducted or harmed..
But isn't that the case exactly that the agencies deem disabled people not fit for adopting children. Of course we know better being blind and some of us having raised even more than one child but then it's the government / society that is being ignorant here and I'd find that pretty sad if this is actually the case.
cheers
-B
yes goblin because that is exactly what they were told by the social workers, not what i thought of the matter. they were told they would be allowed to foster, but would only be allowed to foster disabled children because if social services allowed them to foster non disabled children and the parents found out it (in the view of social services) would cause problems. i by no means agree with that statement.
The parents would NOT find out, due to these children having been removed from violent abusive situations, very rarely do the birth parents have any right to the child, once social services become involved...
I agree with sugarbaby. adopted children do usually come from complicated backgrounds. the last thing they need is a gay couple raising them. I feel sorry for that kid. They're ought to be made fun of. I'm not homophobic, I just don't agree with the whole same sex thing. It actually frieks me out. Again, I don't think that's right.
I must disagree with those of you who are in favour of gay adoptions. As has been pointed out before, it is not natural. Might we examine the animal kingdom? (1) animals do not have homosexual relationships. They may have instances of homosexual experience and/or romps, but not mating. (2) Homosexuals in the animal kingdom aren't called upon to care for the orphaned child of another.
Think, too, of the ridicule and torment the child will have to endure when he/she grows up and, in school, is asked about his/her parents. "So, what's your mom like?" "Oh, I don't have a mom. I have two dads"... You can see the complication here (and it would apply in the same fashion to homosexual female coouples, too). As has been seen before, people can be extremely violent about such matters, so that child could very well end up the victim of hate crimes, even though he/she wasn't directly responsible or a part of the gay joining.
I don't know if, given the choice, I'd elect single parent over homosexual couple. I might elect to choose single parent, based on his/her ability to care for that child both financially and emotionally. After all, a single parent can always find a mother or father to take the missing place.
How will the child react to having gay parents, and therefore suffering the ridicule of such an arrangement? Would he take to doing drugs? Committing further acts of crime in a rebelious move? Suicide?
Clearly none of these choices are desireable. Let us follow nature's rule before we introduce any obsurd dictations on others lives before they even have the ability to decide for themselves.
actually, to go back to a previous post, it depends on the circumstances in which the child has been put into foster care as to whether the parents are made aware or not of where the child has been placed. Many children are taken into care for various reasons, and the parents are not permanently excluded from their children's lives in all instances. In fact, in most instances parents are given supervised visitation rights to their children until such times as a decision has been made about the future of the child. And although the parents are not necessarily told where the child is living, if the child sees his parents during a visit, it is quite conceiveable that the child would tell the parents about his/her foster parents. So it is not impossible, in the view of social services, that a parent would find out if their child was being fostered by a disabled couple and would then cause problems for social services as a result. Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this, but I know someone who has had this experience, who was categorically told that they would only be allowed to foster disabled children, and that was the reason why.