Same sex adoption
30 December 2005, 06:53 PM
#121
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Texas - It's BIG!
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sociopath
Maybe you two should get married 
Come on, pyschopath, keep the enlightened teachings coming!
30 December 2005, 07:01 PM
#123
BANNED
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: www.flamingmorons.co.uk
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but your questions have got NAF 
all to do with two poofs bringing up a child have they.
so you'll just have to 'delight' yourself some other way.... making doilies perhaps?
all to do with two poofs bringing up a child have they.so you'll just have to 'delight' yourself some other way.... making doilies perhaps?
30 December 2005, 07:35 PM
#124
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Texas - It's BIG!
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sociopath
but your questions have got NAF all to do with two poofs bringing up a child have they.
so you'll just have to 'delight' yourself some other way.... making doilies perhaps?
all to do with two poofs bringing up a child have they.so you'll just have to 'delight' yourself some other way.... making doilies perhaps?
Are you allowed out for the weekend, or just the day?
Last edited by 2000TLondon; 30 December 2005 at 07:40 PM.
30 December 2005, 07:39 PM
#125
BANNED
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: www.flamingmorons.co.uk
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree with homosexuals adopting children.... I don't see how that makes me a nutjob. I don't see how that makes me sulking either for that matter but there we go. 
30 December 2005, 07:41 PM
#126
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Texas - It's BIG!
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sociopath
I don't agree with homosexuals adopting children.... I don't see how that makes me a nutjob. I don't see how that makes me sulking either for that matter but there we go.
That makes you a nutjob!
30 December 2005, 07:43 PM
#127
BANNED
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: www.flamingmorons.co.uk
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2000TLondon
Well, if you'd have said that before, I'd not be here! The fact you said Muslims are religious nutters, gays are freaks, gays are as bad as Muslims........
That makes you a nutjob!
That makes you a nutjob!
30 December 2005, 07:46 PM
#128
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Texas - It's BIG!
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sociopath
you don't 'arf get yourself in a tizzy don't you mate!
30 December 2005, 09:19 PM
#130
Originally Posted by hedgehog
I appreciate that most of you never do anything wrong and so you have nothing to fear, but the following might be of interest in relation to this debate:
Freedom of speech, anyone ?
Mark Steyn - THE SPECTATOR magazine
All over the United Kingdom, right now, real crimes are being
committed: mobiles are being nicked, front doors are being kicked in,
bollards are being lobbed through bus shelters - just to name some of
the lighter activities that add so much to the gaiety of the nation.
None of these is a "priority crime", as you'll know if you've ever
endured the bureaucratic time-waster of reporting a burglary.
So what is a "priority crime"? Well, the other day, the author Lynette
Burrows went on a BBC Five Live show to talk about the government's new
"civil partnerships" and expressed her opinion - politely, no
intemperate words - that the adoption of children by homosexuals was "a
risk". The following day, Fulham police contacted her to discuss the
"homophobic incident".
A Scotland Yard spokesperson told the
Telegraph's Sally Pook that its "standard policy" for "community safety
units" is to investigate "homophobic, racist and domestic incidents"
because these are all "priority crimes" - even though, in the case of
Mrs Burrows, there is (to be boringly legalistic about these things) no
crime, as even the zealots of the Yard concede. "It is all about
reassuring the community," said the very p.c.
Plod to the Telegraph. "All parties have been spoken to by the police.
No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is
now closed."
So no crime was committed. Yet Mrs Burrows was "investigated" and a
report about the "incident"
and her involvement in it is now on a government computer somewhere.
Freedom of speech, anyone ?
Mark Steyn - THE SPECTATOR magazine
All over the United Kingdom, right now, real crimes are being
committed: mobiles are being nicked, front doors are being kicked in,
bollards are being lobbed through bus shelters - just to name some of
the lighter activities that add so much to the gaiety of the nation.
None of these is a "priority crime", as you'll know if you've ever
endured the bureaucratic time-waster of reporting a burglary.
So what is a "priority crime"? Well, the other day, the author Lynette
Burrows went on a BBC Five Live show to talk about the government's new
"civil partnerships" and expressed her opinion - politely, no
intemperate words - that the adoption of children by homosexuals was "a
risk". The following day, Fulham police contacted her to discuss the
"homophobic incident".
A Scotland Yard spokesperson told the
Telegraph's Sally Pook that its "standard policy" for "community safety
units" is to investigate "homophobic, racist and domestic incidents"
because these are all "priority crimes" - even though, in the case of
Mrs Burrows, there is (to be boringly legalistic about these things) no
crime, as even the zealots of the Yard concede. "It is all about
reassuring the community," said the very p.c.
Plod to the Telegraph. "All parties have been spoken to by the police.
No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is
now closed."
So no crime was committed. Yet Mrs Burrows was "investigated" and a
report about the "incident"
and her involvement in it is now on a government computer somewhere.
Last edited by DazW; 30 December 2005 at 09:36 PM.
31 December 2005, 11:59 AM
#133
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: sunny Bournemouth
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
Interesting post Chris. I think we seem to fundamentally agree on many aspects of this. I think our differences lye in the practise of it over the theory of it. Good that we can have a decent debate without calling each other names!! A Scoobynet first!! 
I'm not among those who just think that all homosexual couples are a pair of mincing idiots (there's usually 1 mincer and 1 masculine one btw....joke).
On the bullying point, I feel that they "may" be bullied, however in this situatin it's a guarantee IMO.
I think to summarize, I would have no problems this happening if attitudes were different, however I feel that attitudes need to be changed before same sex couples are allowed to adopt as opposed to using same sex couples adoptions as a means of changing those attitudes (if you see what I mean).
Good debate!! Hope it stays on track. Good debating, Chris.
I'm not among those who just think that all homosexual couples are a pair of mincing idiots (there's usually 1 mincer and 1 masculine one btw....joke).
On the bullying point, I feel that they "may" be bullied, however in this situatin it's a guarantee IMO.
I think to summarize, I would have no problems this happening if attitudes were different, however I feel that attitudes need to be changed before same sex couples are allowed to adopt as opposed to using same sex couples adoptions as a means of changing those attitudes (if you see what I mean).
Good debate!! Hope it stays on track. Good debating, Chris.
Hmmm, shame it hasn't quite stayed on track here... Although I think sociopath has really put the icing on his cake with his 'religious nutter' comments.
I think we do agree fundamentally, yes... and you are right, there are definitely still problems in society that will make this thing difficult for the parents, and more importantly the child. So its not a decision that should be taken lightly at all!
It was good to have a proper debate... people have come out with some good points here. It has degenerated somewhat though!
I'm just going to sit back and watch now, as it is making my head hurt a little... perhaps that is last nights San Miguel though....
Good day!
31 December 2005, 04:06 PM
#134
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 4x4chris
Hmmm, shame it hasn't quite stayed on track here... Although I think sociopath has really put the icing on his cake with his 'religious nutter' comments.
I think we do agree fundamentally, yes... and you are right, there are definitely still problems in society that will make this thing difficult for the parents, and more importantly the child. So its not a decision that should be taken lightly at all!
It was good to have a proper debate... people have come out with some good points here. It has degenerated somewhat though!
I'm just going to sit back and watch now, as it is making my head hurt a little... perhaps that is last nights San Miguel though....
Good day!
I think we do agree fundamentally, yes... and you are right, there are definitely still problems in society that will make this thing difficult for the parents, and more importantly the child. So its not a decision that should be taken lightly at all!
It was good to have a proper debate... people have come out with some good points here. It has degenerated somewhat though!
I'm just going to sit back and watch now, as it is making my head hurt a little... perhaps that is last nights San Miguel though....
Good day!
Happy new year all, here's to everyone!!!!
04 January 2006, 04:02 AM
#135
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: william wallace territory !!
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pete1977
I always wished i had been brought up by lesbians!i think there great.
04 January 2006, 05:32 AM
#136
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Here .....
Posts: 3,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it! What is worse? A child being brought up by a lesbian or gay couple in a loving environment, or a child being brought up by a heterosexual couple, one or both of whom are perverts?
04 January 2006, 08:19 AM
#138
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bigdavie
no you dont mate trust me !! lesbians are just ppl some great some good some bad some evil as said mate id have loved to have been brought up by a normal family if there is such a thing !! and no i wasnt brought up by a pair of lesbians ! just one my mum !
Hardly conclusive in it's poll size - but given ScoobyNet's usual standards that's proof it's not a good thing.
Looks like Sociophobe was right if a tad extreme
.
04 January 2006, 12:17 PM
#139
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes we've been here before. however, there's only one question of any importance regarding this issue:
is adoption by same-sex couples in the best interests of the child compared to adoption by male-female couples?
the issue of sexual equality and human rights is totally irrelevant here. i'm sure some same-sex couples are able to bring up children in a loving environment but there's a real world outside the front door. my concerns are that:
a) same-sex adoptee children may suffer degrees of bullying and/or abuse during their schooling as a result. same-sex adoption marks them clearly as both adoptees and of an alternative (some might say abnormal) upbringing. is having to run the playground gauntlet with a sign saying 'i'm adopted with gay guardians' really helpful to the child?
now some of you i'm sure will feel 'well isn't that society's problem for its inate bigotry?' you have a point. however, until being gay is the majority sexual orientation of society, then gay people should be content with the heterosexual majority (and long-established) viewpoint which is that you need a mother and a father for the purposes of bringing up children.
b) this is simply gesture politics to placate a very vocal minority of people and help secure the pink vote
c) that male-female adoption applicants will be descriminated against in favour of same-sex applicants, either to hit inevitable government equality quotas to come or because the local authority concerned has problems with staunch leftist PC militants
i have no axe to grind against gay people; i have no axe to grind about gay civil partnerships. but i put the best interests of the child first and that can only be in terms of balanced male-female parenting. why? because it is the evolutionary, instinctive and social human norm that's pre-programmed in our DNA and reflected across all animal species that form partnerships to reproduce.
is adoption by same-sex couples in the best interests of the child compared to adoption by male-female couples?
the issue of sexual equality and human rights is totally irrelevant here. i'm sure some same-sex couples are able to bring up children in a loving environment but there's a real world outside the front door. my concerns are that:
a) same-sex adoptee children may suffer degrees of bullying and/or abuse during their schooling as a result. same-sex adoption marks them clearly as both adoptees and of an alternative (some might say abnormal) upbringing. is having to run the playground gauntlet with a sign saying 'i'm adopted with gay guardians' really helpful to the child?
now some of you i'm sure will feel 'well isn't that society's problem for its inate bigotry?' you have a point. however, until being gay is the majority sexual orientation of society, then gay people should be content with the heterosexual majority (and long-established) viewpoint which is that you need a mother and a father for the purposes of bringing up children.
b) this is simply gesture politics to placate a very vocal minority of people and help secure the pink vote
c) that male-female adoption applicants will be descriminated against in favour of same-sex applicants, either to hit inevitable government equality quotas to come or because the local authority concerned has problems with staunch leftist PC militants
i have no axe to grind against gay people; i have no axe to grind about gay civil partnerships. but i put the best interests of the child first and that can only be in terms of balanced male-female parenting. why? because it is the evolutionary, instinctive and social human norm that's pre-programmed in our DNA and reflected across all animal species that form partnerships to reproduce.
04 January 2006, 12:45 PM
#140
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Holy Ghost
yes we've been here before. however, there's only one question of any importance regarding this issue:
is adoption by same-sex couples in the best interests of the child compared to adoption by male-female couples?
is adoption by same-sex couples in the best interests of the child compared to adoption by male-female couples?
Is adoption by same-sex couples in the best interests of the child compared to not being adopted at all?
Of course, male-female couples will get priority but what about when there's not enough of them. There's too many kids that are up for adoption but don't have anyone to take them on.
04 January 2006, 12:58 PM
#141
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dracoro
There's a second question:
Is adoption by same-sex couples in the best interests of the child compared to not being adopted at all?
Of course, male-female couples will get priority but what about when there's not enough of them. There's too many kids that are up for adoption but don't have anyone to take them on.
Is adoption by same-sex couples in the best interests of the child compared to not being adopted at all?
Of course, male-female couples will get priority but what about when there's not enough of them. There's too many kids that are up for adoption but don't have anyone to take them on.
on your first point, are you sure? when the inevitable equality quotas are introduced in this area in line with EU regulation - and they will be, rest assured - then what's to prevent positive discrimination? there are enough examples of positive discrimination in the public sector already and all they do is breed resentment.
sure, it's a viable point that there are too few adopting couples around - but is any port in a storm a good policy when one is dealing with the well being of a child? one could argue that remaining in care is better than being a guinea pig in a politically-driven social experiment whose outcome is at best unpredictable and at worst, psychologically detrimental.
it's a real thorny issue, in that there's no doubt.
04 January 2006, 01:09 PM
#142
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ex'e'er
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dracoro
There's a second question:
Is adoption by same-sex couples in the best interests of the child compared to not being adopted at all?
Of course, male-female couples will get priority but what about when there's not enough of them. There's too many kids that are up for adoption but don't have anyone to take them on.
Is adoption by same-sex couples in the best interests of the child compared to not being adopted at all?
Of course, male-female couples will get priority but what about when there's not enough of them. There's too many kids that are up for adoption but don't have anyone to take them on.
A couple who are good friends of mine recently had to wait about a year (after they were approved which in itself was a fairly lengthy process),before a child was available.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RS_Matt
Non Scooby Related
2
17 September 2015 08:59 PM