Is Homosexual Adoption Right? (ENDS 24/7/11)

[Tom]

Reading over the last few posts, this debate has been through a cycle at least 6 times. We've said the same things over and over and it's going nowhere.

We've mentioned they need love and care,
Homosexual couples can bring love and care to a child, just because it's 2 men, what makes that so different to a man and a women (apart from obvious appearance differences)

We've mentioned it will ruin the traditional nuclear family.
Obviously it will, but with it being traditional I think it's out dated More and more gay people are 'born' every day. Some gay people are more caring than mothers and fathers themselves.

(Those 2 are only from what I can remember)

Obviously this is a debate and some posts look like they're becoming an argument. My solid opinion and most other people's in this thread is that Homosexual adoption should be allowed, as there are more pros than cons. As Technologic said

in any gay relationship theres ALWAYS a dom & a sub no matter what they say

This is true, and the with that fact there will always be the mother & father attribute in a child's life.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Your debate etiquette is appalling. I still see absolutely no facts or anything based on tangible evidence.

Don't you mean yourself? below you've just given me a description of how domestic Victorian life in the larger houses worked, not in terms of the traditional family but in terms of how the children dress and so forth. This is not evidence, this is a sideshow/babble. If you want to debate this seriously, which at least others have been doing so, then you will need to stop painting ridiculous pictures of which have nothing to do with topic at hand.

I'm not sure what history you've read of the era, but grand houses where papa comes home to kiss his immaculately dressed children in the nursery before strolling off to the kitchen whistling a merry tune were not the norm in the Victorian age. The majority were poor and had children expressedly for labour purposes, as was the necessity, and this is why there was such devotion to the family - if there wasn't, the country would have collapsed. Now there is simply no need for that, as people have children for the purpose of having children, not as a means of income and support in old age. Child labour has everything to do with it for this very simple reason.

..which brings me back to my point, there is a devotion to the family which worked and does work in the traditional family. The tone of your argument actually rather suggests that the decline of this is a bad thing which of course it is. The traditional family is superior in this as i've stated time and time again and cannot be replaced by homosexual couples or unmarried mothers for the reasons I have stated time and time again throughout this thread.

No I'm pretty sure they're a result of society (yes I said it again, ooh spank me) and the government adopting far more liberal values - something you often claim to support. The breakdown of marriages could not have happened without it being allowed, and therefore logically cannot be the starting point for this degeneration.

And what is society Tom? society isn't a term that you can simply describe everyone collectively as, society is made from families and individuals - any 'change in society' comes from these components. There has been a change in society indeed, with the erosion of the traditional family which has led to the collapse in morales along with the family itself which is becoming more and more under threat as its 'not needed' as Skynus makes the claim below.

I take you back to the example (again) of a couple who have no children as opposed to a couple who do - who will seperate more likely? the couple without children because they do not have the concerns of the children at hand as they do not have any. A couple with children are likely to stay together for longer/indefinetely because they have children. Therefore the relaxation of divorce laws in the late 1960s led to the increase in the breakdown in the married family which is something that cannot be denied as the figures show it.

As explained above, you have an illogical starting point. That aside, culture absolutely does not exist purely through the family - you're somehow missing out the arts, entertainment and possibly most importantly, technology. If all of these things were the same as your beloved Victorian fantasy then perhaps families would still work in the same way, but we have advanced from that and have new perspectives, reasonings, and cultural beliefs.

Of which are influenced by social attitudes. As i've stated previously, divorce and so forth was looked down upon even into the 1980s as something rather negative and not to be done - the left, with its strangehold on culture has played a part but this in turn has been influenced with those starting points with the first blows being dealt to the married family through legislation.

Being conservative is one thing, attempting to force unnecessary ideas on people for the sake of outdated theories is another.

Haven't suggested any force to be used what-so-ever.

Is that so? I'm still waiting for you to produce any facts and evidence for this - by which I don't mean skewed observations that I've already pulled apart.

My evidence are many children around the country of which i've explained time and time again. Many years ago, the culture of divorce and broken families did not exist therefore there is your evidence. Children left without role models (fathers), children being carted off between homes every weekend or two, a collapse in commitment to a mother of which I gave an example previously that when a girl became pregnant the boy would instantly marry without question, now its either 'lets get it adopted or I can come around every few weeks and pay child benefit'.

Now, do you deny these things go on when they previously did not?

I'm quite aware of what society is, and as you seem to also know this I can't get my head around how you're ignoring its evolution. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the theory of a "hierarchy of needs", but we as a society in this country and in most of the West have changed because we are beyond what we yearned for previously, namely offspring who will provide for us as opposed to the other way around, and that changes the entire family dynamic well past a basic standard model and into something that needs to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis.

So whats the model of family now then? promiscuous sex with multiple lovers on drunken nights out? no commitment to the girl when she does become pregnant because there's no social pressure on you/your father never did so? abortion because a child doesn't matter as a family can simply be avoided with a trip to the local NHS clinic? indeed for many the priorities have changed and certainly not in a good way. Why is this? because its infected the culture, its the same with benefits; grandad, mother and father didn't work so why will I bother?

We've mentioned it will ruin the traditional nuclear family.
Obviously it will, but with it being traditional I think it's out dated More and more gay people are 'born' every day. Some gay people are more caring than mothers and fathers themselves.

Really? so before we consign this 'outdated' insitution, which worked, to the dustbin of history - maybe we should ask ourselves the question; is family life for millions of children around this country better now or was it better in say 1950 or 1920? I think the answer is blindingly clear, and thats why I think that this 'outdated' idea which works is rather a valuable, don't you?

[FlyingJesus]

Don't you mean yourself? below you've just given me a description of how domestic Victorian life in the larger houses worked, not in terms of the traditional family but in terms of how the children dress and so forth. This is not evidence, this is a sideshow/babble. If you want to debate this seriously, which at least others have been doing so, then you will need to stop painting ridiculous pictures of which have nothing to do with topic at hand.

This "painting" I gave you was in mockery of what you seem to believe was the norm in those times, which is clearly (read a history book some time) not the case. The point of it is that life was not fantastic for children then as they existed primarily as caregivers - something that no longer is the case.

..which brings me back to my point, there is a devotion to the family which worked and does work in the traditional family. The tone of your argument actually rather suggests that the decline of this is a bad thing which of course it is. The traditional family is superior in this as i've stated time and time again and cannot be replaced by homosexual couples or unmarried mothers for the reasons I have stated time and time again throughout this thread.

You're right, you have stated your opinions time and time again, but what I wanted was for you to back it up with more than "der r bad kidz now" as though there never have been before in history. The traditional family is a superior model in a society that requires the new generation to support one the older one[s], which is as is clear to see not how we now work, and is therefore no longer a required model. You are supporting family for the sake of family when we as a whole have evolved well past that.

And what is society Tom? society isn't a term that you can simply describe everyone collectively as, society is made from families and individuals - any 'change in society' comes from these components. There has been a change in society indeed, with the erosion of the traditional family which has led to the collapse in morales along with the family itself which is becoming more and more under threat as its 'not needed' as Skynus makes the claim below.

Society is not a collective? Are you serious? And yes morals change over time, this is not necessarily a bad thing it's just a difference in needs, as I explained in my previous post. Let me ask you a question that I don't think has had an answer so far - for what reason do you believe the traditional family ought to be maintained? You keep saying it's the best model, but best at what? When answering please try to remember that morals are a personal thing and certainly not something that ought to be forced by negative freedoms.

I take you back to the example (again) of a couple who have no children as opposed to a couple who do - who will seperate more likely? the couple without children because they do not have the concerns of the children at hand as they do not have any. A couple with children are likely to stay together for longer/indefinetely because they have children. Therefore the relaxation of divorce laws in the late 1960s led to the increase in the breakdown in the married family which is something that cannot be denied as the figures show it.

I'm not going to argue on this point as I don't have the figures to do so, but if you do can you please show your source for this claim as I've never before heard that non-parents are more likely to divorce than a couple with children.

Of which are influenced by social attitudes. As i've stated previously, divorce and so forth was looked down upon even into the 1980s as something rather negative and not to be done - the left, with its strangehold on culture has played a part but this in turn has been influenced with those starting points with the first blows being dealt to the married family through legislation.

The arts, entertainment, and technology are influenced by people getting divorced? If what you're bizarrely claiming is true then considering the massive leaps and bounds we've come along in those fields (especially medical/technological) then maybe everyone ought to get divorced as it seems to be working for us.

My evidence are many children around the country of which i've explained time and time again. Many years ago, the culture of divorce and broken families did not exist therefore there is your evidence.

I must ask what damage you think this has done to anything other than the traditional family model itself. People as a whole are no more in suffering from ill health or dissatisfaction with their lot in life than in the past - we probably have improved on those counts in fact - so your argument seems to really be about keeping things the same for the sake of having them the same, or as I said, family for the sake of family.

Children left without role models (fathers), children being carted off between homes every weekend or two, a collapse in commitment to a mother of which I gave an example previously that when a girl became pregnant the boy would instantly marry without question, now its either 'lets get it adopted or I can come around every few weeks and pay child benefit'.

Now, do you deny these things go on when they previously did not?

I absolutely don't deny that those things happen more often now, but I do deny that it's particularly damaging. The outside view of children being as you say "carted off" among parents seems to have connotations that don't really exist. I've never known anyone to feel like they're unwanted or overly confused about such arrangements - moreso however with friends who have both parents at home yet one (or in a couple of cases, both) who seems to want nothing to do with them. Again, it's change but not necessarily for the worse.

So whats the model of family now then? promiscuous sex with multiple lovers on drunken nights out? no commitment to the girl when she does become pregnant because there's no social pressure on you/your father never did so? abortion because a child doesn't matter as a family can simply be avoided with a trip to the local NHS clinic?

To a degree, yup. Of course many do still get married and have kids the old way, and fair enough if that's how you want to do it, but people are more independant now Dan and we do not always require the same rigid family structure that has previously existed. You are now arguing on a purely personal ethics basis, which has no place in this debate. Often our needs define us, and I don't see why there's a problem with that.

Really? so before we consign this 'outdated' insitution, which worked, to the dustbin of history - maybe we should ask ourselves the question; is family life for millions of children around this country better now or was it better in say 1950 or 1920? I think the answer is blindingly clear, and thats why I think that this 'outdated' idea which works is rather a valuable, don't you?

The answer is blindingly clear you're right - yes. Life "sucks" for kids now if they don't have the latest games, I'd say that's a pretty good life as opposed to growing up in absolute fear and being forced into a life you may not really want to lead.

[Judas]

gay is the way forward

*REMOVED*

Edited by Infectious (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not make inappropriate posts!