Archived Forums

Hi, Ben -I think that this article is on much shakier ground than your previous one. The implication from the first few lines is that there are 16,000 children in Scotland who need to be adopted; ony 500 are adopted annually; and that therefore there is a HUGE shortfall in adoptive parents.The truth is that most of the children in care are not waiting for adoption. Many are there for short term reasons and will return to their birth familes. For others, the plan is for long term fostering or other care plans.You state that "discrimination debates are overshadowing the central issue", yet your whole article appears to be stoking up the discrimination debate and, as a reader, I'm not clear on what you DO see as the central issue.How may children did St Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society? Frankly, I suspect that it was very few and that there are many other agencies. So that fact that this agency only works with married couples doesn't, to me, seem to be a significant force in preventing unmarried people from adopting, and there are plenty of other agencies that those people could use. Nor does your article mention the fact that they don't work with unmarried couples or single adopters. Focussing purely on lesbian and gay couples suggests a certain amount of bigotry on your part.Have you also really considered the adoptees? If you are the child of gay parents or a single man (whether gay or not), I would have thought that you are more likely to be quizzed in school about that and your origins than if you are the child of a heterosexual couple or a single woman. That can be distressing for children. And, however much we'd love to believe in the tolerant society, kids can be cruel and, discovering that you're the child of gay parents, are likely to use that as ammunition. For a child who may already feel different and have other significant issues, is it fair to them to add that potential stress? To me, the issue is more complex than your article admits.In addition, in a supposedly tolerant society, where we are supposed to tolerate other people's religious views, why use such a pejorative term as "bigotry" so prominently? Seems to me that you are refusing to accept someone else's perfectly reasonable religious views and are therefore showing a fair amount of bigotry yourself.All the best,Corkwing

Corkwing your memory is a lot better than mine, I can't remember the last article.Anyway“The charity’s policy requires applicants to have been married for at least two years” Surely this is discriminatory to single people too, whether they are straight or gay, so it is not just against gay people.“They can also offer adopted children two full-time parents”Don't gay people work then? Most of the ones I know do.“ 69% are ‘older’ (aged 5-15) and just 2%, or 373 children, are aged less than 1 year”.Interesting that you chose to show a picture with two gay men holding babies who look around 7 months old. Would it not have been better to have chosen a photo of them with older children thereby promoting placing the children who need adopting the most, (ie the older ones).“Adoptees’ views are already overlooked; they rarely, if ever, have any control over what family they are placed with and monumental, life-changing decisions are made for them by adults.”I agree, and this is where children old enough to express their views should be allowed to decide for themselves if they are happy to be adopted by a same sex couple. Some children will be happy with this and some will want to hold out for a more traditional Mum and Dad and their views should be taken into consideration. If they would rather remain in care waiting for their choice of family then so be it, it should be their choice.

Thanks for the comments - much appreciated.I'm not one to be making excuses, but both the picture and title were chosen by the Edictor of scotspolitics.com. Unfortunately, I had no say in either! I have no problems with the picture, but personally, I don't like the title either - as you say, because of the word 'bigotry'. When I sent it to them, my title was 'Same-sex adoption isn't about marriage equality'.However, I understand that the editor needs to use 'sexy' and 'evocative' titles to capture people and make them read the article. That is fair enough in my opinion.Thanks for the comments, it is always good to hear other people's views.

Hi Corkwing,I just wanted to respond to one specific point you made - or rather one paragraph."Have you also really considered the adoptees? If you are the child of gay parents or a single man (whether gay or not), I would have thought that you are more likely to be quizzed in school about that and your origins than if you are the child of a heterosexual couple or a single woman. That can be distressing for children. And, however much we'd love to believe in the tolerant society, kids can be cruel and, discovering that you're the child of gay parents, are likely to use that as ammunition. For a child who may already feel different and have other significant issues, is it fair to them to add that potential stress? To me, the issue is more complex than your article admits."It makes me sad every time I read this sort of argument - and especially from an adopter I respect.Bullying and cruelty are never the fault of the person being singled out for being different. You could take the words "gay parents" out of that sentence and substitute "disabled", "black", "of a religious minority", "glasses wearing", "deaf" etc. and get the same result. Also don't forget that some children grow up to be gay and know this at quite an early age in some instances. Trying to pretend that the world isn't diverse doesn't ever protect those who have some point of difference from discrimination.In my very pertinent experience, the child who has a wide frame of reference of diverse families tends to be (so far) un-phased by factual questions about their origins. Our daughter knows children with two mummies, two daddies, adopted, non-adopted, a mummy and a daddy, a single parent and various combinations of the above e.g birth kids of gay parents, adopted kids of heterosexual parents.I would even argue that LGBT parents like me can be very adept at helping their children negotiate the complexities of being different, coming out as adopted, privacy versus pride etc. because most of us have had to reflect on these issues for many years.This feels like a good moment to point out there is a wealth of research showing that children with gay parents thrive generally - there have been quite a few longitudinal studies now. More recently studies into the outcomes for adopted children in LGBT families specifically, shows the same.https://www.newfamilysocial.org.uk/new-uk-study-shows-children-adopted-by-same-sex-couples-thriving/Please do stand the wealth of evidence of happy, thriving families against the vague fear that different = less good.

ps. Excuse the grammatical error in the penultimate paragraph.And here's another link to an article about the same research.http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/ive-got-two-dads-and-they-adopted-meThe full report can be purchased from BAAF.

Hi, Lily -Sorry that you feel upset.I am certainly not saying that bullying is the fault of the child being bullied and I'm surprised that you could read that into what I'd written.Yes, you are right. You could change the wording. And I'm sure that you'll be aware that there are frequent debates about placing children within families that look different from the child because of ethnicity. That, too, raises issues for the child. Doesn't mean that it should or shouldn't happen: just that it does raise issues.There are debates about whether to place a child with overweight parents. Doesn't mean that it should or shouldn't happen: just that it does raise issues.There are debates about whether to place a child within a family like mine, where there are birth children. Doesn't mean that it should or shouldn't happen: just that it does raise issues.I can imagine that you could debate about placing children with single parents. Doesn't mean that it should or shouldn't happen: just that it does raise issues.Or what about placing children with married couples? There are risks due to the potential for the marriage to break down. Doesn't mean that it should or shouldn't happen: just that it does raise issues.Or, as with us, placing a child with parents who are "religous"? I know that Mackerel has felt torn, so there are issues there. (There's also the balance that we had a very good support network and a church school that went WAY beyond any state school that I've read of). Doesn't mean that it should or shouldn't happen: just that it does raise issues.I'm very happy to look at the issues with any sort of placement.Love,Corkwing

Hi Benhaven't read your article, even without reading it, I just want to say...I feel like this...grrrrrr!!!!we shouldn't even be needing to have this debate in 2013.I am fat...I eat too much and don't exercise enough..that is my life choice..If I left my husband or he left me and I remained single....and I became a single parent...we or one of us is making a life choice..If I chose to follow a particular religion/community/lifestyle that is a life choice...obviously..I do NOT 'choose' to be heterosexual...my sexuality is my own business and has NO impact on my parenting.I agree wholeheartedly that everyone is entitled to a view about lifestyles...we are ALL diverse in our own ways...but what your sexuality has to do with your parenting ability is beyond me...if society feels it does..society is wrong.Why, in 2013 are we still equating being gay with lifestyle choices?....your lifestyle choices have an impact on your parenting, your sexuality does not.The fact that recent research is showing that same sex couples are proving very successful at adoptive parenting surely MUST have everything to do with the discrimination and difficulties they may have experienced throughout their lives...they get it...big time...what 'being different' really means.It's terrible that a person ever has to feel and experience that...just terrible, and over something so ordinary and natural as your sexuality.A gay/bisexual person is NOT different to me in ANY way, other than their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their parenting ability.I have repeated myself...I don't care...it deserves to be repeated.and i would argue till the cows come home, that 'traditional' family set ups of dad, mum and kids is not exclusively the 'best' for any children, let alone adopted children.A balance of values, opinions, reactions, morals and child rearing methods can be achieved by any combination of parent/s, of either sex...it's the people THEMSELVES that matter, not whether they are men or women or a couple or not.What is it some people are really saying when they question gay people becoming parents?'you don't/can't perform a sexual act with a man/woman so you couldn't produce children naturally, or as our religion would prefer/decrees it, therefore, why should you be allowed to, or will you have the ability to, parent as well as us heterosexuals'?er....are we saying or implying that to infertile couples?or people choosing celebacy?no we are not...but I am thinking that we ARE saying something like that to gay people every day...shameful....and it should not be happening.The bullying is a seperate issue...bullying can happen over ANYTHING. Bullies are everywhere in every walk of life,throughout your life....

I don't think anyone is suggesting sexuality has a bearing on parenting ability.I also think that there is a pretty universal belief that (if acheievable) children are best brought-up in an environment of two main carers, where one is male and the other female.I don't think many (any?) people hold this view in a way that's linked to the carers sexuality. e.g. two Brother's bringing up a child would be equally undesirable.Of course a same sex environment is most usually as a result of homosexuality - and we all need to get used to that fact.

Corkwing - yes, placing can be complex. But you pushing the writer of an article to consider that adoption by gay people may be negative is a very biased way of approaching that.Perhaps I should push him to list all the positives that might be found in a gay couple/single adopter. I say might because we are not a homogenous group and every potential adopter has their own strengths and weaknesses.Jaffa - your post is very slightly ambiguous so you may not be subscribing to the "universal belief" you mention.But in any case, I would again point out the wealth of EVIDENCE, on which I would hope a rational and intelligent person would base their beliefs, or against which they would test them. And the evidence, both anecdotal (the families I know) and researched is that outcomes for children are just as good, if not better in families in which the parents are of the same sex. You might be interested, as an aside, to see that some of the earlier longitudinal research into outcomes for children raised in lesbian headed families (not specifically adopted children) showed them faring better than average against some measures of psychological adjustment.See this article about a US study which reportedly showed just that: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.htmlOr a similar longitudinal UK study which (to simplify) shows them faring as well as:http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/1/150.fullAnyway, some food for thought for you.Since I adopted, a few people have asked me whether my partner and I had to "work harder", "prove we were better", "be even more thoroughly tested" than heterosexual prospective adopters. I think most people recognise that "common sense" bias out there - that we're starting from a position of being perceived as being less good and therefore have to prove that we're twice as good. In the same way that it was often perceived as common sense that a female job applicant or applicant from an ethnic minority had to be twice as good as a white man to get the job.But common sense is just that - common, not right.

Dear Lily -When we were going through the home study, we came across some research that suggested that single adopted children placed within a family with birth children had issues as they felt out of place and the odd one out. At the time, we were clear that we were only going to adopt one child. We considered the needs of the child and eventually decided that we would therefore adopt a sibling group. That is something that has led us to years of financial hardship, physical and emotional abuse, mental health problems and a number of other difficulties - all because we put the needs of the child first. And I still think we were right to do so. You will perhaps forgive me, then, for reading Ben's article and thinking about the needs of the child.Whenever I read or hear anything from someone complaining that they have been excluded from adoption in some form - whether they be overweight, gay, wrong ethnic group, wrong expectations, smokers, etc., etc. - the tone always seems to be "we have a right to adopt". As you'll appreciate from the paragraph above, that's not something that I am comfortable with and it's the major reason I don't read the prospective adopters boards any more. So you will perhaps forgive me for questioning an article in support of one of these groups that seemed to be based on the right to adopt, rather than what those people could give.I have read posts such as the following:http://www.adoptionuk.org/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=43599&forumID=31&catID=1You will perhaps forgive me for coming to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, there are potential issues for a child placed within a gay family.Having seen a problem, based on a real situation, you will perhaps forgive me for questioning the mantra that we should accept placements within gay families without question.I have a mind that is reluctant to accept anything just because it's the modern, enlightened way of thinking. 100 years down the line, people will believe that they have the modern, enlightened way of thinking, and it is likely to be very different from what we thing today. Just as the people 100 years ago thought they were modern, enlightened thinkers and held very different views from the ones that we do today. There are many, many things that I question that others seem to take as a given. You will perhaps forgive me for having a questioning mind.As the article states, there are no real barriers to adoption. There are plenty of agencies that will accept gay couples. Yet the National Secular Society are trying to shut down one small, very specialist agency. I don't agree with the agency's religious beliefs - I'm not a Catholic - but I do appreciate that they are consistent and coherent and sincerely held. My personal view of the National Secular Society (having heard representatives on the radio talking about numerous issues) is that they don't care about adoption and they don't care about gay people: they simply have an agenda to campaign against anything Christian. I bet that they wouldn't, for example, complain about an agency for gay couples on the grounds that it discriminates against heterosexuals. It angers me that they can be so intolerant. It angers me that they could be causing an agency to be shut down when it might be doing excellent work for the children. It angers me that, in an age that is supposed to be tolerant, they're potentially causing people to lose their jobs and livelihoods simply because of their religious beliefs. You will perhaps forgive me for that.Love,Corkwing

Lily,I'm in two minds whether I was ambiguous or not.Seriously though - I thought I'd remained silent on my position.

I don't think anyone is suggesting sexuality has a bearing on parenting ability.Sexuality is the entire basis for objection on the part of the church, is it not?We all have personal beliefs (and of course religious beliefs don't 'trump' any other flavour of personal belief). It's just not appropriate to have personal beliefs influencing issues such as this (i.e. issues which are in the public interest) – only logic and reason should apply.