As a father who has raised a child - I assure you - the best situation for a child is to have a mother and a father.......the differences between a man and a woman goes far above and beyond sexuality. I think that is why all those people are out there....I would have joined them....... For me the issue has nothing to do with homosexuality..........For me sexual relationships are sacred and need to remain private in the bedrooms - be it hetro, homo,....
What concerns people like me is the ramafications to government getting involved....cases such as "gay marriage" or like this one "gay adoption", etc. I fully understand two gays can form a home far happier than any man and woman, I also understand two gays can turn out to be better than average parents........but when government gets involved, it opens the door for a whole new debates such as:
What if a man or a woman decides to marry his/her pet? What if that kind of loving family decide to adapt a child? I promiss you there are animals that are far far more humane than many humans!!! Or what if someone wants to marry a 17 year old?, or his own siblings? Where do you draw the line on these issues?
Massi jaan, the best situation is for a child to have parents. The worst situation is for a child to have no parents and be raised by the state. This situation is not about taking a child out of a "normal" family unit and putting them in the custody of two gay parents. It's about taking a child out of the care of state (which is really no care or stability)and giving them parents that are going to provide that care and stability - and that's the main evaluation criteria for any adoption application. As far as the child is concerned, that care and stability should supersede the sexual orientation of their caregivers - that's the argument in support of gay adoption, plus the fact that in societies where equality is part of the constitution, someone's sexual orientation should not hinder them in any way from having access to or benefitting from the laws of that country. On that note, it's the state's job to insure that the constitution and "equality rights" in the constitution be adhered to, even if it offends a minority or even majority population.
I also believe that it is the benefit of the kid to be raised in a family that has a mother and father. But I also realize that there are so many under priviledge kids that care more about not being in poverty and if they prefer that to their current status. so the question is that what is the best for the kid ?
How would a straight kid feel to be raised in a gay family ?
Will they have influence on the kids sexuality ?
Will he/she be confused in early stages of childhood ?
what effects it will have on the kids future ?
Is it more normal to be raised by two women or two men ?
How do the parents should teach about sexuality to the kids ?
Will the kids be ashame in front of their friends and its influence on their social life ?
Before all these question are answered, we just can't select because our own preferences.
I wish all the people that are protesting also have some solution for these wonderful under-privilege kids that need love and affection.
Excellent thought provoking questions bro. I think it's good to examine the answers from both perspectives:
From the perspective of homosexual couples, homosexuality is NOT a choice. This is the way they are born or in cases where it is the result of environmental factors (such as being abused as a child), they still don't have the choice to turn the clock back and undo what was done. At any rate, it's not a choice. Their argument is what I said above, that care and stability are the most important thing to the well being of a child and that it should supersede the sexual orientation of the care-givers. They further argue that these prejudices, toward homosexuality or gay marriage are being slowly eroded, as they should be, so a child being raised in a gay family will not have any more identity issues than a child being adopted by a hetero family and even if they did, it would not be as severe as a child being raised with no family at all. Because they feel that homosexuality is not a choice, this arrangements does not affect the future sexual orientation of a child. Again, the main argument is that providing care and stability are important factors and should superseded all else, even if others would not consider the situation ideal. Not to mention that a child growing up with gay parents will grow up more open-minded and accepting of others.
The conservative perspective is that homosexuality is a choice. That despite all the stigma attached to it and all the hurdles that existed, and in most instances still exist, these people go out of their way to be gay! The conclusion from that is that a child growing with gay parents will learn to be gay - despite the fact that the parents who grew up in a hetero family did not learn to be hetero! They further emphasize that the existence of a penis and a vagina, no more no less, is the most crucial aspect of a child's care, even if the state fails to provide this "divine" combination of genitalia
or that the employees at the foster home may be gay anyway. The importance is not whether a foster child will grow up with the combination of genitalia intended by God or even under the care of a gay employee or ends up a drug dealer in jail or a crack addict on the street. As long as he/she does not end up in the same school that their child goes to, so that they don't get exposed to the concept of homosexuality, because heaven forbid if their kids grow up without the prejudices that they love to fill their heads with or become accepting of other people. If they do, who knows one day they might bring a black girl/guy home and say they want to marry him/her! Of course, the conservative view normally comes crashing in when the devil plants his seed in their home and one of their children comes out of the closet! Then you either don't hear from these guys any more or they blame the whole thing on the exposure that society gave to their children about homosexuality when they were growing up!
Since those are equally valid perspectives
I tend to analyse these situations on the basic principle of treating others, the way I like to be treated. That is if I was gay or that if one day, my son or daughter came to me and told me they were gay, would I still want to deny myself or them the same rights and opportunities that I would have as a heterosexual individual?
