This wont help the sausage jockeys who want to adopt!

[CHAPPERS]

Because to adopt you can create the perfect scenario for a healthy balanced up bringing. To do this you choose the ideal proven tried and tested route of loving mother + loving father . No need for these experiments and risks . 2 men can't reproduce + they chose this way so I dont see it's right that they interfere with nature and have something they were not born to have. If they somehow can reproduce themselves in the future then good luck to them , until that point then it should stay as a loving mother and a loving father.

Should single mothers be allowed to bring up kids? What about single fathers? There is no 'balance' there either?

What you have said is a stock answer for those who don't want gays given the same rights as straight people.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Because to adopt you can create the perfect scenario for a healthy balanced up bringing. To do this you choose the ideal proven tried and tested route of loving mother + loving father . No need for these experiments and risks . 2 men can't reproduce + they chose this way so I dont see it's right that they interfere with nature and have something they were not born to have. If they somehow can reproduce themselves in the future then good luck to them , until that point then it should stay as a loving mother and a loving father.

interesting point.

Are you saying that two fathers cannot make a "loving family", or two women?

I go back to my point...I have met many "married" people in my life as we all have who have made dreadful parents, . We all know people who we would not under any circumstances at all leave our children with who have children of their own.

I have no doubt, the couple I mentioned above would make fabulous parents and provide a boy or girl ( or both) a loving and caring home.

In fact, I played cricket with a guy whose life turned upside down when he realised he was gay, his wife moved out and he kept the kids and they have grown up to be very level headed citizens and are an absolute credit to him and his partner.

To use the example of one couple and to damn all gay people is total bullshit, and panders to the right wing bigots prevalent at the moment. To use the arguement being peddled here, all men should be banned from being fathers as 99.9% of all convicted peodophiles are men.

 

[Napper]

interesting point.

Are you saying that two fathers cannot make a "loving family", or two women?

I go back to my point...I have met many "married" people in my life as we all have who have made dreadful parents, . We all know people who we would not under any circumstances at all leave our children with who have children of their own.

I have no doubt, the couple I mentioned above would make fabulous parents and provide a boy or girl ( or both) a loving and caring home.

In fact, I played cricket with a guy whose life turned upside down when he realised he was gay, his wife moved out and he kept the kids and they have grown up to be very level headed citizens and are an absolute credit to him and his partner.

To use the example of one couple and to damn all gay people is total bullshit, and panders to the right wing bigots prevalent at the moment. To use the arguement being peddled here, all men should be banned from being fathers as 99.9% of all convicted peodophiles are men.

im not banging the gays not being fathers drum as your point about your mate quashes this and Im sure there are others . However what I'm saying is when they do the adoption process they have a choice and IMO the tried and tested route of loving mother + loving father should be the only option.
Someone mentioned should single mothers not be a parent . . .again this is not the point, I am saying in the adoption process . certain criteria should be met + this is a fundamental to have a man + a women . We should not question why and always push the bariers. This is just the way it is .

 

[Grendel]

There is no evidence that homosexuality is a choice.

Is there any credible evidence to suggest that it isn't?

 

[CHAPPERS]

im not banging the gays not being fathers drum as your point about your mate quashes this and Im sure there are others . However what I'm saying is when they do the adoption process they have a choice and IMO the tried and tested route of loving mother + loving father should be the only option.
Someone mentioned should single mothers not be a parent . . .again this is not the point, I am saying in the adoption process . certain criteria should be met + this is a fundamental to have a man + a women . We should not question why and always push the bariers. This is just the way it is .

So should single women be allowed to adopt?

 

[Napper]

sorry the point about no balance I didn't address. No you are right , when the balance isn't right then things do go wrong . I actually think alot of social problems stem from not having "the balance " when being brought up. Im not saying all but certainly some.

Messing with the tried and tested balance is asking for trouble

 

[Napper]

So should single women be allowed to adopt?

No .

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Is there any credible evidence to suggest that it isn't?

Not at all. But to say that Homosexuals forsake the privilege of having children when they decide to be gay is wrong.

Of course I was also speculating that it is not choice.

 

[NMH]

There is no evidence that homosexuality is a choice. If you are going down the route of intefering with nature what about heterosexual couples that can't have children and use IVF?

I am sure, given the choice, the multitude of children that are stuck in childrens homes and all the children that are waiting to be adopted would opt for a homosexual couple over being shipped from foster home to foster home with no sense of stability.

I'd go along with that. Any caring adoptive home would be prefereable to instability or homelessness altogether. Two rug-munchers or nobgobblers might be wrong-uns, but certainly not worse than a slutty ho' who shags anything that moves or a violent hetero household.
Of course the surrogates should be checked thoroughly to make sure they don't have aids, or might perform their perverse behaviour in sight of a child.

 

[looney]

Re: Re: Re: This wont help the sausage jockeys who want to adopt!

I know a gay couple, who are the most loving and caring couple you could ever meet. Should they wish to adopt, they would make excellent parents, probably a damn site better parents than many that I have come accross when I was a school govenor.

Here we go again, tarring everyone with the same brush.

easy pickings isn't it

And the kid wont get tarred at school.?"Oh bad luck, not only were you adopted you were farmed out to fags". Kids dont even have to be nasty about it the stigma will be there, or double stigma.

Whats more important, gay rights or the rights of a vulnerable child?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Re: Re: Re: Re: This wont help the sausage jockeys who want to adopt!

And the kid wont get tarred at school.?"Oh bad luck, not only were you adopted you were farmed out to fags". Kids dont even have to be nasty about it the stigma will be there, or double stigma.

Whats more important, gay rights or the rights of a vulnerable child?

You seem a tad OVERKEEN on constantly resurrecting this thread matey. Anything you'd like to SHARE with us?

 

[looney]

Something wrong with presenting a good arguement? Dont you like free speech? Care to share with us?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Something wrong with presenting a good arguement? Dont you like free speech? Care to share with us?

There's nothing wrong with presenting a good argument, perhaps you'd like to try doing it one day.

 

[looney]

And the kid wont get tarred at school.?"Oh bad luck, not only were you adopted you were farmed out to fags". Kids dont even have to be nasty about it the stigma will be there, or double stigma.

Whats more important, gay rights or the rights of a vulnerable child?

Well hear it is again. Got anything intelligent to say or are you just going to revert to leftwing degenerate type?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This wont help the sausage jockeys who want to adopt!

You seem a tad OVERKEEN on constantly resurrecting this thread matey. Anything you'd like to SHARE with us?

What he said 24 hours ago

 

[Lady Whistledown]

While in the ideal world, evey child that needs adopting would go to a stable, safe environment, with two, secure, loving parents.

However, this isn't possible in practice as there aren't enough would-be adopters around. I could tell you about dozens of cases where I've seen kids in shitty, drug-hazed environments, or where their parents drink themselves into obscurity. I've heard of a mother (FFS!) forcing her daughter (aged 12) into prostitution, so as to fund her own smack habit. I've known children beaten, neglected, sent to school in dirty, old, smelly clothes and bullied mercilessly as a result.

All of these things were done by straight parents, male or female, yet I don't hear anyone saying all straight people should be barred from adopting kids. People who commit sex offences on children are USUALLY heterosexual, as it happens.

Incidentally, I used to work with a gay guy who spent a long time struggling with his sexuality in his own mind. He tried going out with girls to "force" himself to be straight, he had major issues with his own family when he came out to them, resulting in him not speaking to his parents for about 5 years. He's also been beaten up on the streets of Crawley, resulting in a fractured jaw just because a bunch of local chavs thought he might be gay (he was merely walking home from the shop at the time).

For anyone who believes being gay is a choice- well if that's what gay people have to endure in life, I very much doubt many of them would "choose" it if they had the option. It's not a choice, its just one of those things.

 

[e77]

So let me get this straight. Because one gay couple, completely unacceptably, abuses a child no gay couple so ever foster a child again.

By that logic does it follow that if a child is abused while being fostered by a hetrosexual couple, that no hetrosexual couple should ever foster a child?

If so who is allowed to foster a child?

 

[NMH]

So let me get this straight. Because one gay couple, completely unacceptably, abuses a child no gay couple so ever foster a child again.

By that logic does it follow that if a child is abused while being fostered by a hetrosexual couple, that no hetrosexual couple should ever foster a child?

If so who is allowed to foster a child?

Sorry, but you are comparing a natural familial establishment that runs through much of the animal (and bird) kingdom, with a completely odd and unnatural arrangement, contrived for convenience.
Therefore 'logic' cannot be applied.

If total logic were applied, no gay union could possibly have a child's welfare involved in it.

 

[Gwylan]

Sorry, but you are comparing a natural familial establishment that runs through much of the animal (and bird) kingdom, with a completely odd and unnatural arrangement, contrived for convenience.
Therefore 'logic' cannot be applied.

What total rubbish. I can't think of any cases in the animal kingdom where babies are taken from unsuitable families and placed with another mother.

In most cases (and I know there have been well documented instances of a mother bringing up a dead mother's cub/pup/calf whatever), when a mother dies, the child dies.

Fostering is an artificial concept that humans have devised to help children - there's nothing 'natural' about it.

As such, it doesn't matter whether a parent(s) is /are gay, straight, transexual or transvestite, what counts above everything else is whether the parents can offer a child a loving home. As Edna rightly says, there are some dreadful examples of heterosexual parents abusing children, it would surely be better in such cases to be looked after by a loving family.

 

[Dandyman]

While in the ideal world, evey child that needs adopting would go to a stable, safe environment, with two, secure, loving parents.

However, this isn't possible in practice as there aren't enough would-be adopters around. I could tell you about dozens of cases where I've seen kids in shitty, drug-hazed environments, or where their parents drink themselves into obscurity. I've heard of a mother (FFS!) forcing her daughter (aged 12) into prostitution, so as to fund her own smack habit. I've known children beaten, neglected, sent to school in dirty, old, smelly clothes and bullied mercilessly as a result.

All of these things were done by straight parents, male or female, yet I don't hear anyone saying all straight people should be barred from adopting kids. People who commit sex offences on children are USUALLY heterosexual, as it happens.

Incidentally, I used to work with a gay guy who spent a long time struggling with his sexuality in his own mind. He tried going out with girls to "force" himself to be straight, he had major issues with his own family when he came out to them, resulting in him not speaking to his parents for about 5 years. He's also been beaten up on the streets of Crawley, resulting in a fractured jaw just because a bunch of local chavs thought he might be gay (he was merely walking home from the shop at the time).

For anyone who believes being gay is a choice- well if that's what gay people have to endure in life, I very much doubt many of them would "choose" it if they had the option. It's not a choice, its just one of those things.

Once again, Edna gives me some faith in the Police Service.