Adoption-Who can and can't?
  • I know that the perfect image of a home for children to grow up in is a home with a father that works to provide for his family and a mother that is nurturing and either works part time or is a homemaker but what if your life doesn’t fit into that mold… or anywhere close to it.

    Sometimes there are people that know that they cannot provide the life that their child deserves or just don’t want to do it. Those children go up for adoption. Or let’s say that a child becomes an orphan… It’s sad but it does happen. Then there are couples that have been together for a long time that wish to adopt a child due to they cannot have one of their own for whatever reason. Lets say that there is no reason for these people to be declined a child and yet they are met with hostility and discrimination because they are a same sex couple.

    This should not be a deciding factor in today’s world but I was wondering what others felt about same sex couples that want children. Should they be permitted to adopt? Should it matter who their partner is as long as it’s a loving couple? Do you think that this is still an issue that we have in the society that we have today?

    For me the answer is simple. If you are a couple that can provide a safe and loving environment for a child then you should be able to have a child. I do not think that it should matter if your white and the child is black. I don’t think it should matter if your partner and you have been together for 10 years but have never officially been married same sex or opposite sex.
  • I would agree. as long as it's legally good to do so I wouldn't say it wouldn't 'matter'. It WILL matter when your child says 'Mommy? Why have I never met my Daddy??' especially in the case of a boy, every child needs a Daddy IMO. But whether or not it should happen is another matter. I always (almost always) agree with lawful adoption.
  • Do you think that it has to be a couple? What about single and more than 2 people?
  • I agree completely but there was one scenario you didnt mention.
    what if two families are looking to adopt?
    i think a child should be put in a home as close to being what it would be if the adopting parents were the actual parents. That is if all things are relatively equal though.
    If science ever nails down the (gay gene) would those kids be better in a same sex parents situation?
  • What do you mean Moltie? A single and more than two people? Do you mean that is there is a group of close friends that want to raise a child together then I would say that they should try to foster first. If that goes well then yeah they should be able to adopt especially if its the child that they fostered first. If it is a single person that is older and they just have not met the right person yet I say why the hell not as long as they can provide a loving home for the child and all the child's needs are met. There are so many kids out there that needs homes that I think if someone is both willing and able to take in a child especially the older ones then let them.

    As far as the who's my daddy or mommy thing goes with a same sex couple I think they would know from the start that they were adopted and that they had two mothers or two fathers. Most people think that a man can not do a mothers job and that a woman can not do the fathers job but you would be surprised. There are more and more stay at home dad's now to where it is the woman that is the provider. There is nothing wrong with that imo.

    Gilligan I would agree that if there is more than one couple that is looking to adopt that the child should be placed in the best situation possible but that is where there is always more than one child that needs a home.
  • The 'barriers' between feminine and masculine may be blurring, there may be men who are attuned to home decoration (believe it or not) just as there may be a woman or two that plays with big trucks and mud bogs. but there are certain things that I doubt you'll ever find in a woman that you find in most men... such as how to be an egotistical bastard (and how not to be surprised if you are...). Just as I'm sure there are feminine things you'll never find in a man such as an affinity to child birth?? whatever, men pal around with men differently than women pal around with women. Anyway it's not all that common that one sex can take the place of another in any case.

    The question of a masculine influence can be satisfied by simply having a man living there (as a cook... or a useless maid...)... not that you'd have to go that way. You wouldn't have to entertain this notion at all! I'm just stating my preference.
  • jaded_sapphire said:
    I say why the hell not as long as they can provide a loving home for the child and all the child's needs are met. There are so many kids out there that needs homes that I think if someone is both willing and able to take in a child, especially the older ones, then let them.


    Yes.

    It's unfortunate that so many wards of the state have such rough lives. I knew a few in highschool and not one didn't have an addiction or an abusive parent. I have nothing wrong with anyone adopting who wants and can properly provide for a child. To this end, I support stringent policies of pre-screening of adoptive parents, BUT, don't think the fact that it's a same-sex or single, or yeah even group of people, ought to be part of it.

    That said, if the group was a pluralist marriage, I would highly HIGHLY question whether it was a good situation for the child... granted this could be due to some prejudice on my part based on events that have transpired including abuses and early marriage of minors into plural marriages in certain communities. I might, for instance, have an easier time accepting a group of families adopting a child, even though I'm sure the same risks would be present and similar pre-screening methods would be beneficial for this case. Not sure why things are this way in my head, they just are.
  • tbh I am not sure what the screening process is but I assume that it is pretty much the same as the one that the state gives you to be a foster parent. I also think that if someone has been a foster parent then they should be able to adopt the kid(s) that they have cared for if the choose to if it becomes clear that the bio parents will not be getting their kids back.
  • [center]You[/center] penispenispenispenis
  • jaded_sapphire said:
    For me the answer is simple. If you are a couple that can provide a safe and loving environment for a child then you should be able to have a child. I do not think that it should matter if your white and the child is black. I don’t think it should matter if your partner and you have been together for 10 years but have never officially been married same sex or opposite sex.


    I feel that single women or single men should not be able to adopt. If your significant other is prone to episodes of irrational bitch behavior I dont think you should be able to have a child. A loving environment can change with a petty person. If someone is not financially sucesful they should not be allowed to have kids. Poor kids cnan make it but at a handicap..
    There are a lot of people out there that think they are good parents and love to bleat that out repetitionsly, despite being a complete mess or on drugs. If your parent is on drugs you would be better off adopted.
  • GreyAcumen said:
    I feel that single women or single men should not be able to adopt.

    Okay so your saying that a 40 year old business man/woman that has not met the right one yet should not be permitted to have a child even though they can provide for the child and would give the child a loving home and a better life than allot of kids out there get just because that person is single and not married... seems stupid to me but all right.


    GreyAcumen said:
    If someone is not financially sucesful they should not be allowed to have kids. Poor kids cnan make it but at a handicap..

    Things change. You can have loads of money now but 5 years from now you could be more destitute than most people out there. I have seen it happen not just from my family but my friends as well. When you loose your job your cost of living stays the same. Its only a matter of time before you run out of what is in your savings. Also the more money you make the harder it is to find a job... lets face it a ceo of a company is not going to get another position as a ceo in a different company anytime soon. Saying that money is that important is not relevant. Even when a person has several years of experience in a field of work and then they look for new employment they are told time after time that they are over qualified for the position so then they try one that is a step higher and they are not qualified enough. Not sure how it is over there but its brutal over here and has been for a while. Adoption places know this as well. They have to look at more than the money. besides everyone has a different opinion of what financially successful is. Some say that its someone that makes an average of 40k a year while others would say a min of 100k is financially successful. Its a very broad term.

    GreyAcumen said:
    If your parent is on drugs you would be better off adopted.

    I agree with you on this. I feel that Child Welfare should be more strict and pull more children from homes and put them up for adoption more than they do but then that would also mean that the number of state wards would more than trippled in less than a 24 hour period if they did that.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Most Popular This Week