|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:42 am
Topic of the week!
(Ending Sunday March 22nd, 2009)
Headhunter recently stumbled upon this article :
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/02/Bill_would_ban_adoptions_by_unwed_couples/UPI-16261236019126/
Bill would ban adoptions by unwed couples
NASHVILLE, March 2 (UPI) -- A bill before the Republican-dominated Tennessee Legislature would ban adoptions by unwed couples -- gay or straight.
Supporters of the bill say it would place more children in "traditional" families, while critics say it would leave more children lingering in the state foster care system, The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville reported Monday.
Children in foster care usually have few people waiting to adopt them, said Adam Pertman, who heads the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a New York group that works to develop better adoption policies.
"So would it be better for these children to wait for your personal notion of the ideal family to come along," Pertman said to The Tennessean, "or to put children who need homes into the homes of loving, responsible, stable adults who are willing to parent?"
The bill was introduced without reference to sexual orientation of adoptive parents after Tennessee's attorney general concluded in 2007 there was no legal basis in state law for a ban solely on gay couples adopting, the newspaper said.
So, leaving the IVF and surrogacy debates for a later date, who should have the right to adopt? Only married couples?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:09 pm
this is indeed a thought provoking topic. one that cannot be explained in mere black and white. there are several gray areas as to who should be allowed to adopt a child. i don't believe in preventing same sex couples from adopting a child, provided there is no history of abuse toward children from either prospective parent. i also believe this is true for the more "traditional" couple. however, i feel that both parents, regardless of sexual orientation, should undergo a series of eligibility requirements. those found to be living in substandard housing, lacking health insurance, or are found to be unfit should not be able to adopt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:04 am
As an adoptee, I'm torn. I beleive a child is "better off" with role models of both sexes - so a man and a woman, married or not, would be my "ideal parents".
Now, back to reality.
If a couple, m&f, m&m, f&f, can demonstrate their dependability (including general health, financial, emotional stability etc etc) and have support networks (I don't care if these are community groups or extended family) where there are at least one male and one female role model for the child, then I can't see any reason to object.
The issue I have with the article is that it says that there are children needing homes - In developed countries, such as the US and Australia, it's the other way around. Parents are SEEKING children. So, the people placing these kids CAN be picky...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:53 pm
Mmmm I agree with you Sablara, my ideal parents for a well rounded child is to have both sexes as a parent (let's be real nothing would be alive w/o procreating with the opposited sex, now Im not against gays, a lot running in my fam, I'm bi; but a child needs a good exposure of both it's a human instinct to be seeking both sex as a parent, I see this happened to one of my fam member's child). Married or not, although I understand they're concerned, it happens with married couples too; the thought of a not healthy relationship that in a long run they will break up. Same as not getting IUD for being unwed, doctors for unwillingness to approved for they're supposed concerned that you are not "married" and you need to be in a "monogomist" relationship for fear of infection getting into an IUD, which was ridiculous, because still not married and still with the same person evil but funny married people cheat too, which made me said can I just have my tubes tied??? They won't let you do it either because you need to have at least two kids (for me I rather adopt than have two different baby daddies not saying those women are wrong for carrying two different baby daddies cuz I have half siblings, but it's the thing that I get icky about and since I think too much because I am a thinker it doesn't make sense to me since I was a youngin' but I'm the type to fully address I'm only going to do that mistake once and once only...enough about that that's different subject with about the same problem about married vs not married.
But that's the thing not all are emotionally stable even if they think or seem they are, that's why some kids are suffering from their adoptees or vice versa, it's a tricky subject, it's like saying "I"m financially stable can I adopt a kid?", but yes being a celeb you are prune to get that paper of approval to adopt a kid, no matter if you end in a divorce 5 to 10 years from now. Besides, everyone knows and if you are not blind once those adoptees have their own real kids 95 percent of the time they treat they're own child differently from those kids, unless they really are great parents that they think all their kids are equal so if one is in trouble all are grounded (tough love, and discipline). Or a kid is not what the adoptee has expected to become and became violent and aggressive, it's something that you can't take back (because the parents thought they are stable lack the tough love mode to know how to parent when dealling to "brats", that or something wrong with the child mentally, health wise that can really challenge couples to end in a divorce (the thing about marraige can't run right away it's a We or Us thing, not an I where you can disappear without a word when it comes to real tough times).
But speaking of Adoptees turning a child back, there is actually a program that they can return them if a child they are adopting doesn't progress it's like the last solution for these parents forgot the program but I watch a documentation of these problem...Even parents with real kids are putting they're own child back to something (Haven or heaven...don't know anymore since I don't know friends that have these problems with their parenting skills so it's something I forget..).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:03 pm
Ideally, I think it is best for a child to have a stable father figure and stable mother figure, yeah. And so if married means they are going to be there through out that child's life...
BUT I do think there can be good single parents
or same sex partner parents
or un married but committed or whatever...
it's just, it's hard to give every child every support and every example you can. IF you have a choice, give them an ideal. But if there are children in the system waiting for homes and non-conventional homes wanting them, then let OTHER criteria decide. Make sure the parents can care for the kid financially, emotionally, etc. And love them. I don't know. But ideally... yes, shoot for Moms and dads who are married. I don't know. It ISN'T cut and dried for me.
And I just now noticed I posted past the due date. I apologize. redface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:37 pm
Kipluck And I just now noticed I posted past the due date. I apologize. redface No worries! I thought this was interesting. Madonna (who is not married anymore by the way!) applied to adopt another Malawian child, Mercy. The courts ruled against her, saying that she'd not lived in the country long enough. Mercy's, family is upset about it as they're very poor and think that Mercy would have a better life if she were adopted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/madonna/5106188/Madonna-adoption-Mercys-Malawian-uncle-condemns-judges-decision.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
