British Same-*** Couples Can Now Legally Adopt Children:

Being with your own kids is different. As a friend of mine once said, your own kids are always 100,000,000 times better than anyone else's!

Grown men who want to be around other folks' kids... sorry, clearly it's not a fashionable opinion, but there's something wrong. I think of primary school teachers, choir masters, scout masters, gay men who want to adopt undsoweiter and cringe.

When I'm not working I want to listen to some music or go up the pub or play me guitar or quelque chose comme ca, not piss about with some other fucker's screaming bairns.

EW

How sad....As I said, perhaps some self analysis is in order. I mean, who here is thinking about bairns with scout masters or choir masters etc? Perhaps we should just lock up all the male school teachers just in case.
I see you would prefer to be at the pub, or could we just say that you would prefer to spend time with the lads? Theres a thought.....
I like dogs too, does that conjure up any obscene images for you?
Im sorry if you have had some past experience that has affected you, really I am but I think you should try to be a little less liberal with that big tar brush.

Sorry Berlin Fritz me auld wind breaker, thread got a little side tracked there innit....

Hmmmmm,

I see a couple of issues here (well, thousands, but a couple of major ones spring to mind).

1. The Government has a duty of care towards children that for one reason or another end up in care, requiring adoption. I would hope that the primary motive for placing children should be their wellbeing. Now whether this is best served by a married heterosexual couple, cohabiting heterosexual couple, married gay couple, cohabiting gay couple, or single person of either sex will depend hugely on the circumstances. The duty of 'the Government' is to pass law which permits certain circumstances. National Government of course doesn't prescribe the precise placement of each child, merely establish the framework within which the local social services (or whoever it is these days) is permitted to make decisions regarding placement.

I don't doubt that there are circumstances where placement with a particular gay couple is infinitely preferable to a childhood in care, or indeed placement with a heterosexual couple. The degree of fit for any given child will depend on the circumstances, and no one of the above scenarios (hetero couple, gay couple etc) will ALWAYS be better than another. They are likely to overlap considerably. I'd suggest that the degree of fit is analogous to a set of overlapping Gaussian (or similar) distributions with different standard deviations and means (averages).

Having said all of the above, whilst the Government is not able to control the extent to which a great many children are brought up in potentially damaging environments outside of their control, they DO have control over where children are placed for adoption. They therefore have a certain degree of responsibility here, and I believe should exercise it carefully.

This brings me to my second point, which I shall attempt to make without offence.

2 I am happy that homosexual individuals should not be discriminated against, and that they're entitled to the same treatment as anyone else. However, I would hate to think that their decision to persue this lifestyle (and we could get into a huge debate about whether this is a decision, or a 'condition' - I'm sorry, this is not the best choice of word), and hence prevent themselves from having children naturally, entitles them to 'simply' adopt one so that they can fulfill that part of their lives also. The wellbeing of the child must be paramount here, not the desires of the potential parents. I appreciate that not all cases of adoption by homosexuals may be motivated thus, and actually potentially very few, however it remains a legitimate concern. The same as it is a legitimate concern that heterosexual couples may be motivated financially, or, worst case, certain individuals may be motivated sexually (I'm not equating these of course). Screening is in place to prevent these I'm sure.

Children are not a commodity, neither are they an entitlement. Much use of the phrase 'I'm entitled to....' is used these days. Without wishing to sound pompous, children are a gift - no-one is 'entitled' to a child. They are lucky/blessed/fortunate (choose your belief) to have one.

In an ideal world, I personally would 'prefer' that children were placed with married heterosexual parents. Whether we like it or not, or whether we are attempting to be PC or not, this represents a 'conventional' family, and where the duty of care rests with the Government, I believe they have an obligation to the child to place it within an environment which is as conventional as possible. Potentially even more so than many children grow up already, this of course being an unfortunate irony! I also believe that a major issue is that there are insufficient such families willing to adopt, although I'm happy to be corrected on this.

Call me a traditionalist if you like - I'm actually from a pretty well broken home myself! I happen to believe that the most ideal environment for a child to grow up in is with a married heterosexual couple. Again here I mean 'on balance' as there are circumstances where the supposed 'ideal' environment will be significantly worse than one considered 'non-ideal'. However, as an aim, I believe it is well-founded.

Now, where homosexual couples, married or not, sit with regard to single 'parents', or unmarried couples etc will depend hugely on the situation. I don't think its helpful to attempt to rank them, although social services no doubt have a scoring system of some description (which would make interesting reading!). I also don't think they should be prohibited from adopting for the reasons I've expressed above, however I simply believe that a heterosexual married couple is the ideal.

Now I've read, and re-read this several times! If I've offended anyone I'm truly sorry!

Happy parenting!

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by Merto:
How sad....As I said, perhaps some self analysis is in order. I mean, who here is thinking about bairns with scout masters or choir masters etc?

I wasn't suggesting anything sexually perverse per se, merely that such jobs seem to attract odd men. When I think back to the blokes who used to teach me at school, they were united by the following characteristics:

1) They were sad cases.
2) They got all pissed off and exercised about kids being kids.
3) They believed themselves to be supremely intelligent, such that it was unlikely that any of the kids they taught would ever be as clever as them.
4) They were utterly, dazzlingly convinced - often misguidedly - of their own moral rectitude.

I say again, when grown men want to spend their time with kids other than their own (and EVEN their own to some extent!) I just think it's odd. It's not what blokes are for.

EW

Phil,

Yeah, I'll go along with that.

EW

EW,
OK, my misinterpretation.
I too have seen strange people in very unsuitable positions of employmenmt but guess I have been less affected by it.

Phil,
Sounds about right and whatever ranking system social services use, presumably based on what is best for the child, should apply apply to all adoption applicants. Deduct "points" or whatever for a non traditional environment but dont disqualify from the outset.

Martin

I would agree wholeheartedly that the child is the No.1 priority. Fair play to social services and the people responsible for placement as this is what usually happens.

I'm less of a traditionalist than you Phil and have no problem with non-traditional families; love and ability is more relevant to my mind.

It's also important to remember not all kids are heterosexual and adoption fostering isn't always for young children. Young lesbian and gay people (who are confident enough to be out) can benefit greatly from same-sex parenting more appropriate to their needs.

Doug

Doug,

I don't have a problem with non-traditional families, I'm the result of one!

I merely believe that 'ideally', this is what society should strive towards. I find it quite sad that this is becoming the exception rather than the norm. Also, as I suggested, I believe that this environment is very unlikely to ALWAYS be the most ideal placement for a child. Each case is individual, and should be treated as such.

Phil

Phil

quote:

I merely believe that 'ideally', this is what society should strive towards.

I'm curious, may I ask why exactly?

BTW I'm asking this in an entirely non-confrontational way; I really can't see why people see 'traditional' as somehow inherently better.

Doug

TMP

No-one said we were talking about the very young. It was, I grant you, inferred hence my attempt to open up the debate.

quote:

Has any same sex couple *ever* fostered a sexually aware 13 year old? Would a young gay / lesbian be allowed to be fostered by a couple of the same sex as them?

They can now!

quote:

Picture it, juvenile gay bloke with two "dads".....

Wonderful! I see a young soul able to be himself with people who love and care for him and, most importantly, understand him. What do you see?

Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
I say again, when grown men want to spend their time with kids other than their own (and EVEN their own to some extent!) I just think it's odd. It's not what blokes are for.
EW

I'm assuming here that you consider the adoption of a child to be looking after someone elses. Other peoples children can be awful, it's true, but adoption makes them your own. You wouldn't be adopting if you didn't think that way. I guess you wouldn't qualify EW, but many same sex couples would, and I think that's great. We've got to have different views, and that's great too.
I must admit to a slight suspicion about scout-masters and the like, but that's just probably a natural fear of being a parent (I hope). I'd be a liar if I denied it.
There is absolutely no relation between being gay and child abuse, and it mystifies me why people imply that there is.
Maybe one or all of my children will grow up to be gay, and that's fine 'cos we are a loving family whatever and I can't see it making any difference to how we love each other. If that's the same difference between straight parents and a gay child, or gay parents and a straight child, or gay parents and a gay child or a straight parents and a straight child, I can't really see how it makes any difference at all. You have to love people for who they are.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
There is absolutely no relation between being gay and child abuse, and it mystifies me why people imply that there is.

I don't think anyone implied there was, I just said I worry about blokes who want to spend their time with kids; if you're a woman that's fine, that's what women are like. Men work, go the pub, and sleep. They don't fuck about with screaming bairns unless they're very strange... rather like school masters and the like.

EW

quote:

Originally posted by Dougunn:
Phil

quote:

I merely believe that 'ideally', this is what society should strive towards.

I'm curious, may I ask why exactly?

BTW I'm asking this in an entirely non-confrontational way; I really can't see why people see 'traditional' as somehow inherently better.

Doug

Doug,

No offence taken It's not that it's traditional that I think it's better, in fact, the word traditional confuses the issue (if I used it I didn't mean to).

I think i used the term 'conventional' to describe a heterosexual married couple. I think children brought up within a loving 'conventional' marriage have, again on balance as this is not the only prerequisite for a good childhood, a reasonable (increased?)likelihood of good start in life.

Having seen (and been subject to) broken marriages/relationships etc, I have first hand experience of the effects (and potential effects) that these situations can bring about. I am quite prepared to accept that these may be an exception rather than the rule, but I think not.

Stability is key, and a prolonged loving relationship between non-married parents is perhaps unlikely to give vastly different results. In the event of a separation however, certain legal obstacles arise if the parents were not married. I believe this has been addressed recently, however 'unmarried fathers' have (had?) no assumed legal parental rights over their children, rather they have to apply for them with consent from the mother. Again, i'm not sure where the law has got to here, but this was certainly the case until very recently, if not still the case.

Some of these arguments are not therefore 'merely' moral, but have good grounding in terms of the way the law conspires to 'protect' certain situations.

Again, the variations between individual cases are likely to far outweigh any general differences. This is of course why it's difficult to 'legislate' on such issues. The government merely has to provide a framework within which individual cases can be judged on their own merit.

I hope this clarifies?

phil

TMP

quote:

Oh. of course.

What else .

Is that your answer?

Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Cork:
Stability is key

That helps, I'll grant you, but there's more to it than that. Although some members question the provenance and validity of such factors, a child's psychology may not be the beneficiary of an upbringing that's too deviant, no matter how stable or loving it may be. Nor for all its good intentions. Still, so long as two people's "right" to possess/bring up/raise or whatever a child is upheld, all is well!

EW

Phil

If I read you right then I too agree stability is of supreme value.

Are you saying that you think marriage functions to augment such stability? If so, there is surely a counter argument that parents who stay together (when they are unhappy and should part company) are actually 'pressured' to do so rather than 'fail' at marriage. This would not be a good environment for a child.

Apologies if I read you wrong.

Doug

quote:

an upbringing that's too deviant, no matter how stable or loving it may be

What?????

Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Dougunn:

quote:

an upbringing that's too deviant, no matter how stable or loving it may be

What?????

Being stable and loving wouldn't help if it was too deviant and may not be good for the subject/child's mental health as a result thereof.

EW

Earwicker

What's "too deviant"?

Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Dougunn:
What's "too deviant"?

Well face facts, being raised by two men is pretty deviant, wouldn't you say?

EW

EW

quote:

Well face facts, being raised by two men is pretty deviant, wouldn't you say?

Nope. Not traditional or conventional I grant you, but certainly not deviant.

I would however suggest that to label lifestyles or points of view that differ from ones own with pejorative terms is not useful or helpful to the common good.

Doug

Thanks Tarquin. I might add "biological" to mere "social" norms, however, those having the ultimate provenance.

EW

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
From Wikipedia:

"Deviant behavior is behavior that is a recognized violation of social norms. Formal and informal social controls attempt to prevent and minimize deviance."

Could apply to hifi enthusiasts then. Not exactly a social norm is it?

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
Thanks Tarquin. I might add "biological" to mere "social" norms, however, those having the ultimate provenance.

EW

That would be more relevant in this context but only in clarifying the definition of the word.

Any change, social, biological or otherwise has to start somewhere and as such at the outset it has to deviate from the norm. Eventually, if the change is accepted, which it has been by the government who have a major roll in defining social norms, it too becomes the norm.