Should Gay Couples In The U.S. Be Allowed To Adopt Foster Kids ?
Posted by: Berlin Fritz on 01 May 2005
Having just watched one of the only seriously intelligent/funny, U.S. News-Political shows (The Daily Show, Global edition, with the Excellent John Stewart on board: CNN) which is shown here weekly, lasts half an hour, but consists of only about 14 minutes quality viewing, minus the commercial crap, the only other good U.S.show in my opinion being The late show with Jay Leno, innit (CNBC).
Mr Stewart highlighted an interesting little 'stealth' programm that's quietly winging its way through many an American State right now which can only be described 'my opinion' as final-solutionesque, in the extreme. The subject at hand is wether Gay/Lesbian & or Bisexual couples (childless or otherwise) may adopt foster children in the good old U.S. of A. ? It seems that many an adoption agency is now trying to prove if applicants are actually lying about their sexual orientation or not when seeking to adopt such kids. Wether this thread becomes a joke mud slanging match not too unlike the silly court media case involving Jackson that everybody is knocking, though should read their own comments on occassion ! (3rd or 4th such thread if my memory serves me correctly, or have I confused it with my imagination once again ?) remains yet to be seen (I suspect that it will though). The final points made by John Stewart were good summimg up sentences I thought, after one Politician (amongst others) (texas this time) stated that these kids should only be parented by true heterosexual true blue couples etc, etc, and that it's been statistically proven that such kids are 11 times more likely to be sexually abused at some stage if in the care of Gay couples ? Well replied John to these bizarre (completely unsubstanciated statements of fearmongery) "Let em go back to the wierdo's, drunks, child-abusers, etc (Their natural parents) that the States are perpurtedly protecting them from, and all will be Hunky Dory ", or some such line, innit.
Fritz Von I believe in Magic
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by Deane F
(Should Gay Couples In The U.S. Be Allowed To Adopt Foster Kids ?)
Yes.
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by Dougunn
Of course they should
Kids need love, security and stability to thrive.
Gay couples are just as able (and unable!) to provide this as heterosexual couples.
D
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by Earwicker
No. I think kids should be brought up on "standard practice"; if they decide to deviate later in life when they're mature enough to make that decision for themselves, then OK.
EW
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by Martin D
No and no again
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
No. I think kids should be brought up on "standard practice";
EW
That's EU Standard Practice presumeably? (Proper sized strawberries and all that....)
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
That's EU Standard Practice presumeably? (Proper sized strawberries and all that....)
No, biological standard practice. Bollocks to the EU, I'm voting UKIP!
EW
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by plynnplynn
I believe that the sexual orientation of 'parents' has little to do with the kindness and care and love that their children receive. I do however also believe that wherever possible it is important for children to be raised in a family environment in which the parents are not only loving, caring and happy but are also heterosexual.
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by Martin D
EW good point
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by graham55
I'd line up the prospective "parents" and shoot them, as that would be a good response to the question!
G
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by Lomo
Big hurdle to be overcome. First the State has to recognise Gay marriage. This will then presumably lead to the recognition of a firm family starting point for the legal adoption of children.
Personally all of the Gay people I know are very kind and loving and what's more, highly intelligent members of society.
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by Stephen
Yes. But only if they can provide evidence that they won't abuse their children at the same high levels as heterosexual parents. The family is not a safe place!
Posted on: 01 May 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
only if they can provide evidence that they won't abuse their children at the same high levels as heterosexual parents.
Child molesters are predominantly heterosexual and 95 percent of them are men. And would somebody help me out with the concept of a "normal" family as I think it is being confused with the idea of a "healthy" family.
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
And would somebody help me out with the concept of a "normal" family as I think it is being confused with the idea of a "healthy" family.
Ideally they'd be both, but normal is a good start!
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Nime
With an official 30% failure rate the heterosexual partnerships seem not to be competing assiduously enough for the ideal child-rearing unit. That's a hell of a lot of tormented kids when you add in the those partnerships still struggling along but not offically dissolved.
Take away the reamaining council house Chavs, alcoholics, drug abusers, liberal scumbags and speed camera industry operatives and we're beginning to see a serious shortfall in suitable candidates for the child-rearing competition.
Given the propensity for kids in homes to be serial rodgered by just about anybody that way inclined....Then perhaps even a stable homosexual pair can manage just a little better than your "normal"?
Nime
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
With an official 30% failure rate the heterosexual partnerships seem not to be competing assiduously enough for the ideal child-rearing unit. That's a hell of a lot of tormented kids when you add in the those partnerships still struggling along but not offically dissolved.
Take away the reamaining council house Chavs, alcoholics, drug abusers, liberal scumbags and speed camera industry operatives and we're beginning to see a serious shortfall in suitable candidates for the child-rearing competition.
Given the propensity for kids in homes to be serial rodgered by just about anybody that way inclined....Then perhaps even a stable homosexual pair can manage just a little better than your "normal"?
Nime
Yeah, I've long argued for a eugenic solution. There're too many people in the world anyway. I think the only answer is technology: all should be sterilised at birth, and their fertility later "activiated" only if they're deemed suitable breeding stock.
Sounds harsh, un-PC and generally unfashionable since most people seem to think they have the right to knock out as many kids as they possibly can, but think about it: it's the only way.
EW
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Nime
Well...it's a solution..not a great one...but I think it would work for a while....
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by Lomo:
Big hurdle to be overcome. First the State has to recognise Gay marriage. This will then presumably lead to the recognition of a firm family starting point for the legal adoption of children.
Personally all of the Gay people I know are very kind and loving and what's more, highly intelligent members of society.
Who said anything about marriage, aren't non married respectable couples allowed to adopt ?
Fritz Von Respectable
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Dougunn
quote:
Yeah, I've long argued for a eugenic solution. There're too many people in the world anyway. I think the only answer is technology: all should be sterilised at birth, and their fertility later "activiated" only if they're deemed suitable breeding stock.
Sounds harsh, un-PC and generally unfashionable since most people seem to think they have the right to knock out as many kids as they possibly can, but think about it: it's the only way.
Sounds like Nazism to me.
What hope does any child have growing up in a world filled with the xenophobic, intolerant, self-righteous sentiments expressed in this thread?
Outta here . . . .
D
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Dougunn:
quote:
Yeah, I've long argued for a eugenic solution. There're too many people in the world anyway. I think the only answer is technology: all should be sterilised at birth, and their fertility later "activiated" only if they're deemed suitable breeding stock.
Sounds harsh, un-PC and generally unfashionable since most people seem to think they have the right to knock out as many kids as they possibly can, but think about it: it's the only way.
Sounds like Nazism to me.
I hope you are not a parent
D
No it's just lateral thinking. One can leave society's problems to fester and get worse or intervene in some way; it's a simple choice.
And no, I'm not a parent, thank god.
EW
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
And no, I'm not a parent, thank god.
EW
I agree.
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
I do hope Our Mick hasn't shown his new boss this forum, What would she think ? and him being on probabtion and all, innit.
Fritz Von It's a long long way to Canada
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Meredith:
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
And no, I'm not a parent, thank god.
EW
I agree.
With what??
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
With what??
Presumably with the fact that we can be thankful you're not a parent.
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
Yeah, I've long argued for a eugenic solution. There're too many people in the world anyway. I think the only answer is technology: all should be sterilised at birth, and their fertility later "activiated" only if they're deemed suitable breeding stock.
By the way, who would 'do the deeming'? I would guess that if it were members of this forum, your own fertility would remain "unactivated" (assuming that you're really serious about your comments).
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
By the way, who would 'do the deeming'? I would guess that if it were members of this forum, your own fertility would remain "unactivated" (assuming that you're really serious about your comments).
Regards
Steve M
So you guys take the view that protecting kids from unsuitable parents, and society as a whole from the resulting decadence, is a terrible thing? Most of you seem to agree that some people are unsuitable for parenting... so keep kids away from them then!! If they can't have their own, don't give them any! It's a serious business, and satiating people's hormal desires shouldn't be the object of the exercise.
If you take the view I wouldn't make a good parent then I agree. Besides, I'd never forgive myself for condemning another human being to life in this shithole of a world. I shall forfeit my turn and congratulate myself for doing so.
EW
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Nime
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
I shall forfeit my turn and congratulate myself for doing so. EW
Then please also accept our hearty congratulations....on your wise decision.
Nime
