Joensuu

Turkish, your view stated in this thread suggesting that men need to find women attractive before they should want to raise children is nothing short of homophobic. Is it natural for men to want to raise kids? Is homosexuality natural? If you answer yes to both of those, your argument must be based on a personal fear or dislike. If you answer no, then i'm afraid you are homophobic. It's become obvious to me that you are entrenched in your view (which is to your own loss and discredit). I'm interested at what lies behind your view; what causes someone to want to impose restrictions on the private lives of another. What gives you the right to prevent others from living their lives the way they want to? Is it religion, or something repressed in your past?

And i thought you said you weren't homophobic, 'not natural' tsk. (Oh, and dont forget homosexuality has shared 1000's of years with us too, i'd warrent that the first gay 'adoption' will have preceded homo sapian sapian).

The old nature nurture debate. There is evidence pointing both ways, but trend in science seems to be favouring 'nature'. Personally, I think there is enough doubt to conclude that a combination of both factors lead to the outcome. Certainly there isn't evidence to support this being entirely a 'decision' as you seem to have. What about people who are capable of having biological children, but who chose not to for a social reason - say to avoid further overpopulation etc. Should they be banned from adoption too?

What, the mythological ones?

Does this hold true for all hopeful adoptees who are unable to have biological children, or just the homosexuals? Yes, agreed (except for the bit in the brackets, which, currently doesn't hold true)

Right, so you know before you decide to adopt that your child won't at any stage become bullied for your love of Saints. Sure, you can mitigate against it happening, but you can't prevent it from happening. Yes, unfortunately you are right. However, as I have pointed out there are numerous other reasons why a child might be bullied, and it is impossible to remove the risk altogether. Should fat people be allowed to adopt? What about ugly people? Honestly, your argument is entirely flawed. In some cases I'm sure you are right. In the vast majority you are wrong. Well that says a lot about you, but judging by the number of homosexual partners hoping to adopt it would appear that many people do indeed want children without finding women attractive. I guess the two things can't be linked. Biologically that is indeed the function behind sex. However, if you have ever had a w@nk I'm sure you will understand that procreation isn't the only reason for sex.

...

So what you're actually saying is that any person who has done anything that might later cause their children to be socially embarrassed should be prevented from adopting? Does this include all traffic wardens, anyone who has ever driven a skoda, anyone who supports the wrong football team, anyone who admits to voting tory, or labour, or lib dem, or any other party, or abstaining? Again, where is the line?

No, I guess I wouldn't.

Let me correct that for you:

So where's the line? Should a ginger couple not have kids for fear of ridicule and bullying? Perhaps only those with blond hair and blue eyes should be allowed to breed eh?

Interesting, but how is that even slightly relevant to homosexual adoption?

So are you saying anybody faced with prejudice should give up just in case they run into adversity? (Are you still in the 70s?)

Possibly, but unlikely.

Wrong. Irrelevant, as this could equally apply to homosexual couples. [Whether it is a good thing for anybody to be doing is a different subject]

I'm not familiar with your family or profession. I guess I was hoping for you to respond something like this: http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf "Thus, it appears that more children could potentially benefit from having permanent homes with capable parents if lesbian and gay adults were allowed to adopt in the U.S. and elsewhere"

Well Turkish, you were playing for it so I thought I'd deliver. I do not agree that your 'fact' is a fact at all. It is a unfounded statement of your personal belief. Oh, and I'm not arguing for a 63 year old - that is far too old to act as a responsible parent IMO.

I guess, if everything else were equal, the less stigmatised upbringing is likely to give the child an easier time at school. Unfortunately we are currently not in a situation where couples are treated equally, the sexuality element eliminates high quality adoptees a long time before their hetro counterparts - and that needs to be redressed.

No stereotying here (referring to the characters depicted within the programme, and not extrapolating that to all members of the travelling community). Oh, and I'm a liberal, not always 'left'

TBH, I think that if a child is deprived of having a excellent homosexual parents, and instead forced to make do with average hetrosexual ones, then that would be pretty selfish.

Might I ask for the source of this study into the 'psychological well-being of a child' you cite - or are you guessing?

Yeah, who cares about science and other such bunkum eh?

No, you are wrong, PC (or as I prefer to call it 'common decency') has nothing to do with it. This is only about how well two adults can care for a child. I can think of plenty of hetro couples who have failed to raise their children well (e.g. Big Fat Gypsy Weddings, most residents in Pompey, Walter and Daisy West etc). I conclude that you are merely trying to hide your homophobia behind some form of (flawed) morality.

Now if this is what is going to happen, this would be a legitimate reason to block the adoption. Sexuality isn't.

Well that would depend upon your race. If I assume that you are indeed white, and you are claiming to be offended by being called white, then you are a ****.