|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?
|
Luna
Shipmate
# 2002
|
Posted
Oops, sorry about the double post, but I just had a small epiphany.
One "why not" may be the fact that there isn't a legal provision for permanent unions among homosexual couples (I'm not trying to bring up another subject, really!). I don't think an unmarried heterosexual couple is allowed to adopt a child, and I definitely would not advocate that. Hmmm...
--------------------
Well-behaved women rarely make history.
Visit my blog!
Posts: 107 | From: UC Berkeley, California | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mysticlisa
Ship's seer
# 2867
|
Posted
It seems the discussion here has gotten quite hung up on the pros and cons of homosexuality... rather than the fitness to parent. Back in my private practice days I was asked to interview a child and several adults to assist a court in determining custody of the child. The child's biological mother had died, and the mother's lesbian partner was seeking to adopt. Unfortunately, the biological grandparents were suing for custody on the grounds of the partner's "immoral" lifestyle. There was also a black heterosexual couple interested in adopting, as the child was of mixed race, and pressure was on to place children of color in culturally appropriate homes. As I interviewed each of the individuals involved, I wasn't surprized to see that a case could be made for or against each one. My recommendation was based on what I believed was best for the child... In this case, the child had an established, stable relationship with her mother's partner. The woman was emotionally healthy, financially able to provide, and committed to raising this child. She should be allowed to adopt? Definitely. Do I believe any homosexual should be allowed to adopt. Definitely not.
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Of course, the only people allowed to adopt children should be healthy, young (but not too young), morally unimpeachable (but not self-righteous), firm (but not too strict), loving (but not too needy or sentimental) intelligent and creative (but not overly-committed) AND above all well-balanced. In fact, NOBODY should be allowed to adopt children or even raise their own – we’re all far too deeply flawed.
I agree, Qlib... None of us, if examined closely, would be deemed fit to parent. But adoptive parents must stand up to scrutiny to protect the children. Sexual preference should only be an issue if it's an issue that troubles the potential parent.
Chukovsky (sp?) is right. There is very little information on outcomes for children raised by homosexuals (individuals or couples). There is even less in the scriptures on who is fit to parent. Trying to make either a scientific or a scriptural argument just isn't possible.
--------------------
"More things are wrought by prayer
than this world dreams of."
-Alfred Lord Tennyson
Posts: 483 | From: my laptop | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poet_of_Gold
Shipmate
# 2071
|
Posted
The traditional family provides the best environment for raising a child.
If love is like water and wisdom like sun, then the youngsters need a balance of both. The tenderness of love and an inclination towards safety resides naturally within the mother, and the "go ahead and take chances" "you'll be all right" "you'd better behave" mentality resides in most dads. This is the way it's supposed to be. Now I'll have some critics saying a mom can certainly make her kids mind, and a dad can certainly give tenderness to his children, and I'm not arguing that point. But on the whole both characters fit the role model, and on the whole it is a good thing.
Posts: 204 | From: USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mysticlisa
Ship's seer
# 2867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
The traditional family provides the best environment for raising a child...The tenderness of love and an inclination towards safety resides naturally within the mother, and the "go ahead and take chances" "you'll be all right" "you'd better behave" mentality resides in most dads.
What a gross generalization! Are you saying all women are tenderhearted and cautious and that all men are disciplinarians and risk takers... by nature?!?!
I only have one response to such stereotyping:
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
"More things are wrought by prayer
than this world dreams of."
-Alfred Lord Tennyson
Posts: 483 | From: my laptop | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
hear, hear, mysticlisa.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Katie H. L.
Shipmate
# 1996
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
The traditional family provides the best environment for raising a child.
If love is like water and wisdom like sun, then the youngsters need a balance of both. The tenderness of love and an inclination towards safety resides naturally within the mother, and the "go ahead and take chances" "you'll be all right" "you'd better behave" mentality resides in most dads. This is the way it's supposed to be. Now I'll have some critics saying a mom can certainly make her kids mind, and a dad can certainly give tenderness to his children, and I'm not arguing that point. But on the whole both characters fit the role model, and on the whole it is a good thing.
Oh, I should not bother, but are you really saying that love comes from women and wisdom comes from men?
Wow, we've got a long way to go baby.
Katie
--------------------
Katie L. just using her middle initial for a while.
Posts: 606 | From: San Francisco, USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Poet_of_Gold, I used to be really skeptical of the generalization you made. Then my wife and I had kids. Guess what happened. Hmmm...
By the way, I appreciated the way you clearly specified that you were making a generalization and that you were not making a statement about the inevitable cross-over that happens in parenting.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beethoven
Ship's deaf genius
# 114
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
The traditional family provides the best environment for raising a child.
If love is like water and wisdom like sun, then the youngsters need a balance of both. The tenderness of love and an inclination towards safety resides naturally within the mother, and the "go ahead and take chances" "you'll be all right" "you'd better behave" mentality resides in most dads. This is the way it's supposed to be. Now I'll have some critics saying a mom can certainly make her kids mind, and a dad can certainly give tenderness to his children, and I'm not arguing that point. But on the whole both characters fit the role model, and on the whole it is a good thing.
OK, you've admitted it's a vast generalisation, so I'm not going to go there. What I think is a valid point in this is that there is a need for both aspects in parenting - loving tenderness, and the perhaps more daring, extrovert characterised in Poet's example father figure.
However, I suspect (and this is pure speculation) that the complementary nature of relationships will mean that these different aspects of love are both there, regardless of the sex(es) of the parents. I certainly would hope they are in any couple who were prospective adoptive parents!
--------------------
Who wants to be a rock anyway?
toujours gai!
Posts: 1309 | From: Here (and occasionally there) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
I was recently involved with a discussion on this subject on another web site of a more general nature. Two points were made by people in that discussion by different people that are worth mentioning:
1) A woman who had been adopted and raised by a lesbian couple stated that she was more than happy with her upbringing and very grateful to her adoptive parents for the love and stability they had offered her. She considered herself a stable, well educated and successful human being and was firmly adamant that being raised by a lesbian couple had done her nothing but good.
2) A man who had been raised in foster care very angrily said that in his opinion the “family values” camp had got it very badly wrong and in no way had the best interests of children in mind. He said that he would give anything to have his childhood again and be raised by a loving family rather than a succession of loveless foster homes. He said that he would definitely rather have been adopted and raised by a couple of gay men who actually loved him than be forced to relive the experience of foster care again. He made it clear that in his opinion the best interests of children were very definitely best served by encouraging gay couples to adopt.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hyper Drive
Apprentice
# 2935
|
Posted
From a more spiritual perspective: Most people in the after-life would really hate thier self-images being effectid in negative ways considering they live forever there. It's obvious most of them then would hate the thought of being adopted by homosexuals. I think people should perhaps be a bit more patient, and stop thinking so much about production rather than safety. All it takes is a little enlightenment. But not to much considering the effects of Overdrive.
Posts: 7 | From: Nevermind | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
From a more spiritual perspective: Most people in the after-life would really hate thier self-images being effectid in negative ways considering they live forever there. It's obvious most of them then would hate the thought of being adopted by homosexuals. I think people should perhaps be a bit more patient, and stop thinking so much about production rather than safety. All it takes is a little enlightenment. But not to much considering the effects of Overdrive.
huh? is it me, or does this make no sense whatsoever?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Welcome aboard, Hyperdrive - we rarely see new shipmates this far down in the bowels of the Ship!
I'm afraid though that Nicolemrw's post is reasonable - I think I understand the first part of your post (to the effect that children adopted by homosexuals are going to be unhappy about it for all eternity) even though I don't agree.
The second part, however, from 'I think people should be a bit more patient', has gone right over my head. Could you unpack it bit for me please, and explain the reference to 'Overdrive'?
Always willing to continue a good discussion ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
Not exactly adoption, but relevent, all the same I think is this research study which found that:
"Children born to lesbian women using donor sperm seem to be as well-adjusted as those brought up by heterosexual couples. "
I'm not sure Belgium is particularly feted for it's tolerance towards same sex couples, so one could expect these children to have had the possibility for homophobia as any here, or in the USA.
My own theory on the subject -lesbians, who have to go through an awful lot more work to have a child - are more likely to be stable, loving parents and provide a supportive atmosphere for what is, after all, a very much wanted child.
Peace,
Kirsti
--------------------
All shall be well
And all shall be well
And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hyper Drive
Apprentice
# 2935
|
Posted
RE: TonyK.
This person did not say they would be unhappy for all eternity. It's just that obviously people there would be keen about image for obvious reasons. RE: Explain what you mean by, "... the effects of "Overdrive"... :
Some studies show a startleling metamorphisis in people when they focus on certain images:
1. There eyes begin to water
2. They start coughing and laughing at the same time
3. They begin to call thier son's names
4. Their mustaches turn green ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posts: 7 | From: Nevermind | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dks
Shipmate
# 2849
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bob R:
The Bible clearly, I say again CLEARLY, identifies homosexuality as a sin that is particularly abhorrent to God. Hence the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I think you'll find that the bible isn't very clear about many issues once you scratch the surface. As for Sodom and Gomoorrah, well homosexuality has nothing to do with that story. The Hebrew, like the Greek, has a seperate word for homosexuality and it is not the one used in the passage.
The levitical code is defunct under the new covenant, so that gets rid of any old testament objections.
In the new testament the two pauline references could well be to do with pagan cultic activity and temple prostitution. Also the NT does not have a concept of stable faithful gay relationships.
It is worth stepping out of the box now and then. You'll be surprised what can happen.
Posts: 122 | From: Cardiff, UK. | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dks
Shipmate
# 2849
|
Posted
Sorry, I forgot to directly answer the question. As might be obvious from my reply, the answer is a resounding YES!
Posts: 122 | From: Cardiff, UK. | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poet_of_Gold
Shipmate
# 2071
|
Posted
1 Corinthians 6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Okay, what's the Greek word for effeminate?
I don't advocate hate, and some gays don't know any better or can't get out of their thought pattern, but sin is sin, and no matter what brand of sin your heredity leans toward, we are all called to fight it, not give in to it.
Posts: 204 | From: USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unkl Davy
Shipmate
# 2777
|
Posted
It used to be pretty easy for me to rag on homosexuals cuz it wasn't any kind of a problem for me. I just figured they were all just weird deviates.
It wasn’t until I heard the music and testimony of a guy namedDennis Jernigan that I realized the kind of depth of pain one can suffer.
Posts: 216 | From: Silicon Valley | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
likeness
Shipmate
# 2773
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Miss Dree-Saint:
weird deviates.
As opposed, presumably, to non-weird deviates. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
The eye is the lamp of the body.
Posts: 464 | From: No. 43 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SWAT (aka the former Mr PInk)
Shipmate
# 2979
|
Posted
As someone who is A) adopted
B) A parent
C) Homosexual
I've followed this with some interest.
Wether one type of person is better than another type of person in bringing up a child is a moot point. I was apdopted at three months & never knew my "birth" mother (nor do I want to) while my realtionship with my parents hasn't been a bed of roses I know deep down they love me as they would of if they had me via the usual method.
When I was married adoption was one of the paths we considered due to the fact that my wife & I had trouble concieving & this wasn't anything to do with the fact that I was Gay (thats a another story) however while we really wanted a child we wouldn't of been able to adopt due to other factors (age,size of house being two plus the fact that one of us would of had to give up work meaning our income wouldn't have been sufficent to meet the criteria set. The fact that everyone says that we are both good parents just goes to prove that what "society" isn't always right.
There is also the thing about Biological clocks in the case of Lesbians which explains the lenghts some will go to. I have to say that while I'd of been happier if I'd known what I was when I was younger (I knew I liked Sex but couldn't woork out why I wasn't enjoying it) I have always had the desire to leave my mark on the world via a son & hier (or in my case a daughter too).
--------------------
"That's sooooooooooooo"
Posts: 65 | From: Croydon | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dks
Shipmate
# 2849
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Okay, what's the Greek word for effeminate?
.
Well the Greek for effeminate is malakoi which is seperate from the Greek for homosexual, which is arsenokoitai . In 1Cor 6:9 above this is translated as 'abusers of themselves', not a particularly good translation.
But the Greek term is about anal intercourse, not about orientation. It was common in the ancient world to practice sodomy for extra sexual kicks. This bears little or no similarity to loving, faithful and stable gay relationships. It is a problem of hermeneutics, rather than scripture itself.
Posts: 122 | From: Cardiff, UK. | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unkl Davy
Shipmate
# 2777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by likeness:
quote:
Originally posted by Miss Dree-Saint:
weird deviates.
As opposed, presumably, to non-weird deviates.
Actually, you're pretty close to right.
Dennis was deviate for many years, but not really weird. (In the I gotta wave my hinny down main street in some kinda 'pride' parade in a leather thong kinda way.)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 216 | From: Silicon Valley | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hyper Drive
Apprentice
# 2935
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dks:
Well the Greek for effeminate is malakoi which is seperate from the Greek for homosexual, which is arsenokoitai . In 1Cor 6:9 above this is translated as 'abusers of themselves', not a particularly good translation.
!
Not to take a shot at , but IMAGE, man. For the image of the bible it is a perfectly reasonable translation.
Further translation parrallel : A disrespect to ones self image is indeed a moral infraction/sin.
(edited to fix quote)
[ 07 July 2002, 14:53: Message edited by: TonyK ]
Posts: 7 | From: Nevermind | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hils
Shipmate
# 2251
|
Posted
I have not studied all the posts on this subject so apologies if i repeat something someone else has already said!
I am adopted myself and so this subject is obviously very close to my heart.
Personally i feel that there is enough stigma from society towards adopted people already and don't feel that there needs to be anymore by putting children in to a family which isn't regaded by all of society as 'normal'
I was put into a wonderfully loving family with many benefits I wouldn't have had if my birth mother had kept me, but I have had real trouble accepting my own identity despite having had lots of love and support from both church and family.
Why make growing up any harder than it all ready is in this day and age
Posts: 470 | From: Surrey | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dks
Shipmate
# 2849
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hyper Drive:
[QB Not to take a shot at , but IMAGE, man. For the image of the bible it is a perfectly reasonable translation.
Further translation parrallel : A disrespect to ones self image is indeed a moral infraction/sin.
(edited to fix quote)[/QB]
I'm not too sure what image or IMAGE (if you prefer) has to do with it. A translation from one language to another is either good or bad.
Posts: 122 | From: Cardiff, UK. | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
A few points worth noting on the Corinthians letter as it is translated in the KJV Bible:
malakoi - which is translated as “effeminate”. This is not a bad translation but the word Malakoi has no equivalent in English. Consider the English slang word “yuppie” – if you describe someone as a “yuppie” this conjures up a certain image – young, affluent, arrogant, design cloths, wine bars, materialist etc. Malakoi is a word like yuppie – i.e. it conjures up a series of images rather than one specific meaning. Malakoi literally means “soft” and was used to describe men who adopted any characteristics of a woman. Effeminate is not accurate because the Greek idea of what women were like is not the same as the C21st western society idea of women. The Greeks, for example, believed that women were obsessed with sex and highly prone to sleeping around and that men were the opposite. A Greek man typically believed that all women ever thought about was sex and it was only men who were capable of thinking about anything else. Therefore Malakoi conjured up a series of images of femininity of which some are totally alien to the modern way of thinking. To call someone Malakoi was to conjure up an image of a man who:
1) Was probably but not always a passive homosexual.
2) Made his voice “Malaken” (soft) in order to attract male lovers.
3) Was obsessed with sex and highly promiscuous.
4) Was cowardly and weak
5) Prone to shameful behaviour – i.e. a weakling
Any particular man who was labelled Malakoi might have some or all of these traits. It was not always used to describe passive homosexuals. It was often used to describe cowards and weaklings – men who were “too feeble to carry their own shields” to use a phrase that appears in one of Aristophanes’ plays. Polybius uses the word Malakoi to describe someone who is a shameful coward but who is neither effeminate nor homosexual. Malakoi appears to have been simply used as a catch-all insult to describe any man who failed to live up to the Ancient Greek cultural male value of Arete (excellence).
Therefore, when Paul wrote of Malakoi he certainly meant any man who does not conform to a macho stereotype. Cowards, weaklings, effeminate heterosexuals and effeminate homosexuals would all be considered Malakoi in Paul’s time.
arsenokoitai - this word does not mean homosexual, nor does it mean “defilers of themselves with mankind” - it is a rude word that Paul has partly constructed himself. It literally means “male fukers”. It implies highly lecherous homosexual sex – possibly someone who is likely to be the lover of a “Malakoi” and thereby party to their corruption. The Greeks had other phrases that they used to describe honourable homosexual relationships – men described as Eromenos/Erastes or in relationships that were describe as “chaste/self-disciplined” love affairs. Paul’s Corinthian audience would have interpreted his comments as applying only to shameful lecherous homosexual relationships – nothing to do with the way homosexual love should ideally be practised.
Ultimately this particular passage of Corinthians has limited meaning outside of the cultural context of the day.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mysticlisa
Ship's seer
# 2867
|
Posted
Dear Paul... Thanks for the Greek lesson! (no sarcasm here at all... genuinely impressed & appreciative!) I agree strongly with what you seem to imply... that our opinions, policies and practices regarding homosexuality need to take culture (in our time and in the early church) into consideration.
--------------------
"More things are wrought by prayer
than this world dreams of."
-Alfred Lord Tennyson
Posts: 483 | From: my laptop | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThoughtCriminal
Shipmate
# 3030
|
Posted
slightly off topic, but:
Mysticlisa - I have to ask one question - Did anyone ask the child who he wanted to live with?
In my view this should be above all other considerations in (almost) any custody battle.
--------------------
"These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15: Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night within his temple; and he who sits upon the throne will shelter them with his presence.
16: They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; the sun shall not strike them, nor any scorching heat.
17: For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water; and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."
Posts: 126 | From: Coventry | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Also adopted, also gay. Not a parent, and don't wish to be!
My view is that gay people should be allowed to adopt children, but that no-one should have the right to adopt children. It depends simply on whether they would make good parents. Some gay people would make excellent parents, some wouldn't. A bit like heterosexuals, really
Given the amount of abuse which goes on in the family, its a pity that not having a right to a child can't be extended to heterosexuals as well. If only people would have children because they genuinely want to bring them up, rather than as 'the thing to do', or worse, to try to bolster a failing marriage
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SWAT (aka the former Mr PInk)
Shipmate
# 2979
|
Posted
Merseymike in our case Having a child wasn't to save a failing marriage. Though I have to say having sex every night for the sake of hitting lucky definetly didn't me any good (esp as I had problems with female gentalia) as in it all become routine & very hard to muster any enthuasim whatsoever. There were a couple in our ante natal class who we later learnt were having a child due to one of them having an affair. Their attitude was very cold as in person Y will begoing back to work asap after the birth something I & my then wife found hard to grasp esp as we wanted to spend as much time with our daughter as was pratically possible.
--------------------
"That's sooooooooooooo"
Posts: 65 | From: Croydon | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
With regard to the House of Lords decision...to be overturned by the Commons, one hopes
Its misleading , because the current situation, and one no-one has tried to change, is that single people within unmarried couples can adopt, whether they be straight or gay. Its just that only one of them is the official adopter, so in the case of that person dying or becoming ill, the partner has no responsibility for the child, despite actually sharing in his/her upbringing, the status as a couple being well known to the adoption societies.
This is the purpose of the law change, to ensure that this does not happen, and to enable more people to be encouraged to consider adoption, and help to reduce the number of children in 'care' - and we all know well the consequences of that.
What some people are really frightened of is the prospect of gay couples (and for some, unmarried straight couples) beine given any 'recognition'. Of course, as a gay man, I would prefer to get married, but as that isn't likely to happen, civil partnership will do. I am sure it is going to happen at some time in the future : this is just a hiccup along the way. But the decision has nothing to do with children and everything to do with fear of gay recognition
Incidentally, I don't think anyone should have the 'right' to adopt children, and I speak as an adopted person. Bringing up kids is a responsibility, but I think that responsibility should be judged on the ability to provide a loving home. My lesbian friends with kids all do that very well
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Smudgie
Ship's Barnacle
# 2716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luna:
Having never met a single adoptive parent, I don't imagine that scenario is very common.
Sorry it's taken me so so long to notice this thread. Hi Luna.. pleased to meet you! There are three single adoptive parents that I know of in my neck of the woods, and I'm one of them! ![[Sunny]](graemlins/flowerface.gif)
--------------------
Miss you, Erin.
Posts: 14382 | From: Under the duvet | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
I am not sure quite how I feel following this recent Lords debate and the comments of the likes of Anne Widdecombe on Question Time. Some of them reeled off a whole load of statistics to make their “point”. Statistics are good way of burying human beings and a good way of delineating society into “us” and “them”. From what or whom do these people think they are “protecting children”? From me it would seem – that is how they view me – a threat to children and, by implication, a threat to society. Do I actually have any vested interest in society as a whole? Should I care about it at all? I don’t know. I am not at all sure it is remotely interested in my community, or that it really wants us to play any kind of role in it.
I think we are strangers cut off in a foreign land.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SWAT (aka the former Mr PInk)
Shipmate
# 2979
|
Posted
I think the question should be "is there No sutch thing as Society" & why does this have sutch a familar ring to it.
As to Merseymike's comment after an incident at work yesterday I don't think anyone should expect the right to have children by whatever means.
--------------------
"That's sooooooooooooo"
Posts: 65 | From: Croydon | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
Well, this is a hard thread for me to post on for reasons close to my heart.
On the issue of whether single people can adopt - they can, and many do.
The law as it currently stands does not stop adoption into a homosexual couple's home, in the same way that it does not stop adoption into the home of an unmarried couple. The issue is that in an unmarried situation (gay or straight) only one partner can formally adopt. There can be a change in legal status for the other partner to be legally recognised as having a role in the child's life, but not full parental responsibility.
I think we need to consider the needs of the children far more highly than the desires of prospective adopters.
There seems to be some confusion about which children are placed for adoption these days. In spite of the prevailing understanding, very few children are placed for adoption because they have been orphaned, and only about 200 babies are given up for adoption by (predomininantly teenage) mums who can't cope.
Most of the 5,000 children seeking new families (of the 20,000 or so children in the care system) have been removed from thier birth parents becasue of neglect or abuse.
These children have suffered greatly, both through the neglect/abuse, and though the moves they have had, often traumatically.
The question to me is this - is it right to take a child who has been emotionally/physically, or sexually abused, suffered many moves (often more than 15 different homes before being adopted) and suffered the bereavement of the loss of thier birth family, and to place them in a situation where they will face further stigmatism, bullying or other forms of victimisation - make no mistakes, it happens.
I think Hils post should be read very carefully.
Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt as a couple? I don't think so.
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clyde
Shipmate
# 752
|
Posted
MatrixUK,
Your post and that of 'Hils' have pusuaded me to the view that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. I'm sure that many can provide a loving home but I now believe that the interests of the child are not best served by being placed in such a position.
--------------------
I've not been on the ship for a long time. I'm very old now and don't like it when the sea gets rough.
Posts: 1279 | From: England. | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
The question to me is this - is it right to take a child who has been emotionally/physically, or sexually abused, suffered many moves (often more than 15 different homes before being adopted) and suffered the bereavement of the loss of thier birth family, and to place them in a situation where they will face further stigmatism, bullying or other forms of victimisation - make no mistakes, it happens.
Being the child (adopted or natural) of a mixed-race couple can also place them in a sistuation where the above will occur. So should we not place children in a mixed race home?
Sieg
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
Current social services, (and most independant agencies') policy is indeed to place children of dual heritage (mixed race is not a great phrase, and they avoid it)with families of dual heritage.
It is very unusual to place a child for adoption with a family of differing ethnic backgound.
This is argued on two grounds, the first being the one outlined above, with the hope of minimising further unwanted attention (and let's face it, if life's been crap so far why put a child or children in a position of almost guaranteed unwanted attention - most adopted kids just want to be "normal").
The second reason is that a family of the same ethnic backgound will help the child to grow up in, and embrace their heritage as much as possible.
Now we might argue that parents of a differing ethnic backround may be able to actively develop the child's sense of cultural heritage - and indeed those rare occasions when it happens are because parents have convinced social workers they can - but that is the policy.
I guess it takes ua little off the thread, but might have something to say to the subject in more than one way perhaps.
The bottom line for me is this - is the child's best interst served by being placed in an environment where they will experience more discrimination or not.
On another subject - one might argue that the security that children who have experienced so much disruption need, is best provided in a relationship where the couple are at least married....
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
I get the impression that some people are not exactly living in the real world here.
Although the question originally put was “should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?” I would suggest that this question is in itself a hypothetical non-issue. For one very simple reason – homosexuals ALREADY ARE allowed to adopt children and have done so in reasonable numbers.
Therefore the scenario of a gay or lesbian couple raising adopted children is NOT hypothetical or about the future. It is a reality of society as it already is today. Not only that but the advent of IVF treatment has meant that large numbers of lesbian couples ARE having children and raising them as a lesbian partnership. This is not a “what if” scenario at all, some people here appear to be under the illusion that it is. In the UK during 2002 a total of 8,000 lesbian couples signed-up for IVF treatment with a view to becoming parents and raising children with their partners – many of whom have already received treatment. That is the real world situation. You only have to go on to a gay issues website and look under the parenting section & you’ll see dozens of lesbian couples every month looking for gay men to act as sperm donors.
There is no issue to discuss as to whether or not gays and lesbians are “allowed” to have children. The fact is that they have them already & will increasingly have them in future. The only question is therefore how society accommodates such family units. If we are saying the children who are raised by such family units will face prejudice and bullying in schools then society clearly has a duty to change social attitudes to ensure that this does not happen. A key element in so doing will be to ensure that homosexual families are presented in a positive light by the education system and that children are encouraged to accept such family units as a normal part of mainstream society. This naturally would mean getting rid of section 28 in the UK for a start. If we really cared about the wellbeing of children then these are the issues we need to start addressing.
One thing is for certain, during the next 5-10 years we will see a substantial number of children entering the school system who ARE being raised by homosexual family units (predominantly by lesbian couples).
The only technical issue relates to whether or not the partners of the official adopter and/or the mother/father are also allowed to adopt the child. I think if we wish to ensure that these family units are as stable as possible then the only option would be to encourage partners to adopt as well and have a joint stakehold in raising the child. To further promote the stability of such units gay marriage should ideally be an option.
One final point. I know someone who was raised entirely in a succession of care and foster homes. He is very angry that some people are still arguing that children should not be adopted by gay couples in this day and age. He would say that it is all very well for people to pontificate from their armchairs but if any of them had ever actually been raised in care they would know that gay adoption is infinitely preferable to being shunted around the system as he was. He is a heterosexual, working class man BUT he says he would have given anything to have been raised by a couple of loving gay men rather than live through the unloving upbringing that he actually endured.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Excellent post, Paul
And today - much to my surprise - the House of Lords voted to pass the Children and Adoptiuon Bill which allows gay and unmarried heterosexual couples to become joint adopters.
Also,under the Human Rights Act, same sex partners have been given the right to succeed to tenancies. This could open the way for further reform and recognition of same sex relationships - and not before time
Now, when is the Church going to catch up ?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
When is the church going to catch up?
Well, I guess if all the Church were as convinced as you seem to be that same-sex relationships are fine then soon. However, as I am sure you are aware, the majority of the Christian community are not so sure.
So, perhaps it's not an issue of churches catching up, but standing firm perhaps?
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
And becoming more and more marginal and irrelevant to people's lives, as they 'stand firm' for prejudice and discrimination.
No wonder 93% of people never go near a church.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
If the church really believed it was Discrimination and prejudice then they'd be opposed.
Of course it is by the world's standards, but most of us aren't convinced it is by God's standards.
I'm not in favour of discrimination. I am in favour of the Values of the Kingdom of God. And i am aware that we are in the midst of a discussion that is not finished yet.
Hearts need to be won, as well as arguments. And i'm not sure that God want's our hearts to be won by the prevailing cultural norms.
There may be a greater liberty standing against them sometimes.
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
(MatrixUK: like the sig!)
I think this must be a very difficult issue represented as it is by two apparently incompatible understandings of what scripture says about homosexuality. Over the years I have changed my stance on their interpretation from the fairly conservatively orthodox (small 'o') to a much more liberal understanding.
I find very little in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah for example, which reflects a same-sex relationship founded on genuine love and respect. The S&G story is a nasty tale of abuse of sexual power, ie potential rape and lasciviousness. It's compounded by the cultural mores of the time - cultural mores which arguably may no longer be applicable in our culture.
From my (admittedly not exhaustive) studies I understand that virtually all sexual acts had to tend towards the possibility of procreation; anything else being ruled out as not pleasing to God who had given the command 'go forth and multiply'. In a time when lots of little male babies were needed to establish the strength and power of a nation or a city this was understandable; though as I've just said culturally bound. But nevertheless the S&G story does not major on the sinfulness of a loving consentual monogamous same-sex relationship, in fact, it has nothing helpful to say whatsoever to this scenario; but centres on at the very least an abuse of the sacredness of hospitality, and at worst the abuse of sexual power.
The passage in Romans similarly doesn't say much, to my mind, that is helpful about a loving monogamous etc same-sex relationship; but refers to men and women who swap 'natural' relations for unnatural relations. I know some scholars and one or two early church Fathers (Aquinas?) who interpreted this from the classically Greek position that because men and women were physically engineered for each other it was 'natural' and 'good' that they should have relationship with each other; in the same way that a woman was engineered for giving birth and therefore a 'good' woman was someone who had children etc because she had fulfilled the function for which her body fitted her.
Again, I'm not sure if we need be tied to the cultural priorities of other ages. In a way, it's a bit like constructing our 'truth' from the cultural conveniences of another era.
Actually, where would we stop with an argument that says it is our anatomy that should determine our sexuality? If a woman and a man are 'naturally' made for each other (and indeed if we're into procreation and/or heterosexuality this would be the 'norm'), but no other combination is permissible, founded on the notion of what fits where; then wouldn't we find our sexual expression, even within those 'legitimate' boundaries, a little limited? I still have vivid memories of a Christian book on sex stating categorically that vaginas were not made with fingers in mind! Nor mouths for... well, you get the picture
There must be more to it than mere anatomy!
Final note on homosexuals who can't be parents. I must remember to say that to a lesbian friend of mine who has two (biological) children from her first marriage - sadly none from her second, as she was widowed before that was possible (now, you can't say she didn't try the heterosexual thing!) - and who raises these delightful, intelligent kids in a stable, loving Christian home, with a partner who is totally committed to their family. I think to suggest that to place an adoptive child in an environment such as this would be harmful, immoral or not pleasing to God is just plain silly.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808
|
Posted
Just any homosexual person shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, just like just any heterosexual person wouldn't.
--------------------
Quid pro quo, Clarice.
Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
A very good point Frisbeetarian, but I think the main argument in this thread is whether, as a matter of principle, homosexuals ought to be allowed to adopt. Your post seems to imply that you think they should be if they are suitable - is this your position?
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frisbeetarian
Apprentice
# 6808
|
Posted
Absolutely! Anyone - regardless of sexuality - who has the love and resources (eg home and finances) to raise a child should by all means be able to adopt.
--------------------
Quid pro quo, Clarice.
Posts: 39 | From: On the roof | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Girl with the pearl earring
Apprentice
# 9151
|
Posted
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating anyone else.
I don't think that people's sexuality should affect their suitability for adopting children. If they can provide a loving family for the child, then great, it's just what a child needs.
Unfortunately, I do think that society's response to people's sexuality can cause problems in the welfare of children adopted by homosexuals. Because many people, very sadly, are prejudiced, it can mean that children who are adopted by homosexual parents can be horribly teased by their peers because of their 'abnormal' family background. The question is, to what extent does this affect the child's welfare? It is horrible, and wrong, than the reaction of society should prevent people from adopting children, but unfortunately it can be the case that children are made very unhappy by bullying from their peers, and this has to be taken into consideration.
Hopefully one day (and one day soon) we will reach a stage where society is loving enough to accept people regardless of sexuality, and this isn't an issue, but unfortunatley it's all too real for some children, and they come to resent their adopted (or biological, but since become homosexual) parents because of reactions from their peers.
This is in no way a reflection on the prospective parents, but a very sad relic of the values of some people in society.
Posts: 26 | From: Cambridge UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I act as local secretary for the Children's Society. Although they only put children with homosexual couples where that is the best solution for the child, there was a lot of bad publicity about a recent case. Several people who used to support the children's society then said they wanted to give up; even one of the local churches cancelled its support because the PCC voted against it on this issue.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GrandRoach
Apprentice
# 9614
|
Posted
NO...just No!!Its just wrong
--------------------
The Full Armor of GOD makes me look fat!
Posts: 4 | From: Germany | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
