Gays and having children

[Texashiker]

Since this thread IS about gays, in the case of gay relationships at the very least one partner must adopt the child to have parental rights.

As long as one member of the gay marriage is forced to adopt, then marriage will never be equal.

Now would you like to discuss the adoption process, which again is what the true discussion should be about if you truly do care about the issue, or would you prefer to let the train wreck continue?

There is a lot of hate flowing from your post.

 

[PingSpike]

Sometimes I think straight people are worried that LGBTs will be better parents and spouses than they are.

Statistically, they probably already do make straight parents look bad. Not because gay people are inherently better but because there are not going to be very many gay couples that accidentally became parents. They're most likely going to have to be well off first AND then make a conscious choice about when and how they become parents in the first place.

 

[brycejones]

OP continues to hit the crack pipe in this thread.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Statistically, they probably already do make straight parents look bad. Not because gay people are inherently better but because there are not going to be very many gay couples that accidentally became parents. They're most likely going to have to be well off first AND then make a conscious choice about when and how they become parents in the first place.

And adoption centers and sperm banks have slightly more stringent requirements for who is deemed appropriate to use their services to get a child as compared to nature. If you aren't in a stable situation (a homeowner with a stable, well-paying job), you aren't considered an ideal candidate for adoption and you don't get to have a baby. There's no requirements like that for pregnancy. No one ever got drunk, went home with a stranger and woke up with an adopted baby. There's not an epidemic of teenagers accidentally adopting babies (although that would make for some excellent reality TV). It's significantly harder for gays and lesbians to get children, so you would expect that the people who jump through all those hoops are at least going to be better suited for parenthood than straight parents with an accidental pregnancy (not always, of course, but on average).

 

[SlickSnake]

This topic I found too confusing to really comment on, even though I was effected by it but don't wish to divulge details here.

And I seem to mostly agree with Atomic Playboy if that counts for anything.

 

[OverVolt]

Whatever happened to people having their own kids.

 

[jackstar7]

Whatever happened to people having their own kids.

Happens all the time. Just doesn't freak out the inmates.

 

[JulesMaximus]

This is not meant to be an anti-gay thread. I would like to have an honest discussion on a gay married couple where one person has to adopt the child.

This article got me to thinking - http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/a...cost-my-family-3k-to-be-queer-this-month.html

For the sake of discussion lets say that gay marriage is legalized nation wide. And gay couples have the same rights as non-gay couples.

The couple in the linked article said they had to spend around $3,000 to adopt the child one lady of the couple gave birth to.

What I do not see mentioned anywhere in the article is the natural father.

Why should someone who is not biologically related to the child be given instant rights as a parent?

Lets say the biological mother had a one night stand with a guy. She gets knocked up, goes back to her wife, child is born a few months later,,, why should the second woman instantly receive parental rights to the child?

Dad decides he wants to be part of the childs life, the two women split up, who gets custody? Who has to pay child support? Does the dad and one of the women have to pay support to the one who has custody of the child?

Now we have a three way custody right with one parent having no biological relationship to the child.

If gays should receive instant rights, what about heterosexual couples? Jack and Jill get married, Jill has an affair with John, Jack and Jill get divorced.

Should Jack be financially responsible for the child? Should Jack receive instant parental rights even though it is not his child?

Pretty simple really: It's up to the courts to decide waht is in the best interest of the child if the involved parties cannot come to an agreement on their own. I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with this quite frankly.

 

[piasabird]

The real question is why should 2 people who have chosen a lifestyle that should make it impossible for natural offspring of children be allowed to adopt? It is unnatural. They have chosen not to seek a natural path to a family but they want the benefits and all the rights of other people's children. What gives them the right?

 

[ZaneNBK]

The real question is why should 2 people who have chosen a lifestyle that should make it impossible for natural offspring of children be allowed to adopt? It is unnatural. They have chosen not to seek a natural path to a family but they want the benefits and all the rights of other people's children. What gives them the right?

Wow.

A) They can purchase sperm to impregnate themselves if they're female and wish to do so, that gives them the right.

B) As of 2011, there were 400,000 foster children in the US. Children with no families. If those children were sought out and adopted by gay parents they would most likely be better off. That gives them the right.

Beyond that, there are plenty of mentally ill and terminally stupid people that can insert penis into vagina and spawn children. Apparently you would consider that preferable simply because it's natural. FYI, that's probably where most of those children in foster care came from.

 

[SheHateMe]

The real question is why should 2 people who have chosen a lifestyle that should make it impossible for natural offspring of children be allowed to adopt? It is unnatural. They have chosen not to seek a natural path to a family but they want the benefits and all the rights of other people's children. What gives them the right?

I think its pretty "unnatural" for straights to be putting thousands of children into the foster care system.



So, you know what gives gays the right to adopt? Their willingness to WANT to take in someone else's child and give them a loving home...maybe a better situation than one that involves bouncing around group homes and being abused by the other kids. Like the above poster said, there are over THOUSANDS of kids in the system put there by heterosexuals...so don't start that "unnatural" bullshit because it can be turned right back on those you deem "natural".

 

[Zxian]

The real question is why should 2 people who have chosen a lifestyle that should make it impossible for natural offspring of children be allowed to adopt? It is unnatural. They have chosen not to seek a natural path to a family but they want the benefits and all the rights of other people's children. What gives them the right?

I'm assuming you're straight. When did you make a conscious decision to become straight?

Gays don't choose to be gay. It's not as simple as "Do I choose to wear red or blue today?"

The previously mentioned comment about in-vitro fertilization also applies. Science is unnatural, right? :whiste:

 

[Veliko]

The real question is why should 2 people who have chosen a lifestyle that should make it impossible for natural offspring of children be allowed to adopt? It is unnatural. They have chosen not to seek a natural path to a family but they want the benefits and all the rights of other people's children. What gives them the right?

You have things backwards.

Even if being gay was a concious choice, preventing them from adopting children doesn't actually punish homosexuals - it punishes the children who are left in the orphanages.