Hello. That's an interesting point and, on the surface, it seems pretty reasonable and fair. I wonder, though, if this is any way to live? Leaving aside the issue of gay people adopting children, for one moment, must we really cast forward for all possible eventualities and moderate our actions accordingly? If so, must we apply this same hyper-caution to every single thing that we do (or are prepared to allow others to do)? (And, if not, why should such pre-emptive restrictions be applied specifically to the adoption of children by gay parents?) Yes, a child adopted by gay parents may possibly be subjected to bullying at school (although I'm unsure of the data backing up such a claim/worry, to be fair). A white child adopted by black parents may possibly be subjected to bullying and ridicule at school. A white child adopted by well-meaning, white, heterosexual and middle-class parents may possibly be subjected to bullying at school. The naturally born child of any given parents may possibly be subjected to bullying at school. Or, to put it simply, a child - any child - may possibly be subjected to bullying at school. Is this fair? If it is, then your solution - if you're consistent with the original point you made - appears to be that instead of confronting and eradicating the actions (and possibly mindset) of the bullies, we should simply avoid doing anything that may upset and provoke them? It reminds me a bit - this way of thinking - of the people who said that newspapers should refrain from publishing the (crappy) cartoons that seemed to offend sections of the Muslim population. We should honestly allow ourselves to worry (to the point of retreat) about people who seem incapable of taking on board different ideas? That doesn't make sense to me. I make no comment on the rights or wrongs of adoption by gay parents - although it appears to be legal and I'm comfortable enough with that and comfortable enough with any honestly held moral objections people may have - merely that this strand of the anti argument feels seriously flawed (to me). Anyway, sorry for going on. I hope you can make sense of what I was trying to say, even if it's a bit rambling.
Two points here. Why should any child be denied a loving parental relationship, whether it is from a normal heterosexual couple (either married or not), a single parent or a same sex couple? Also having elected to persue a same sex marriage a couple, by this very decision, are sending a message that they are behaving in a manner that cannot produce children, so why then go through all the hoohah of adopting and/or arranging to be surrogate parents. Just seems odd to me.
It's as valid an argument as yours, a black couple cannot naturally produce a white child so using your logic they should not be allowed what they cannot make themselves? I need a new car and i cannot build one myself, should I be barred from owning one?
Men and men cannot have children. Women and women cannot have children. Who the **** are you to call someone a bigot because they don't conform to your idealistic notions. Twathead. You are the bigot.
My apologies Dev, I have a number of things to do on a Sunday so I don't have the time to sit in front of a computer all day bitching like a schoolgirl... I'm glad you do though - keeps you off the streets I suppose! To answer your very silly question about the black couple, yes, they can adopt a child of any colour - i'm no racist but it seems you may well be? Also, it is very rare, but black couples have produced white babies before... check it out as you're on the internet... The car one is just plain bloody stupid so I think you can shove that one where the sun don't shine... sunshine!
ST that would make us look like idiots, how can you defend gay couples adoption rights if things like EDGE are created?
Edge's views are all messed up coz of the lies his uncle told him when he was young: "No, Young Edge, this isn't gay, having sex with women is gay! Now bite this pillow..."
