I see a lot of differing points of view on this subject on other threads, what do Americans think?

If someone is willing and able to adopt and support a child in need (or not in need for that matter, ie. surrogacy) then I am all for it. In the case of adoption from an agency, they must meet their standards. As far as purposefully having someone else bear a child for you, again I am all for it so long as you are financially able to care for the child and are emotionally and morally ready. The fact that someone is involved in a gay relationship has no bearing on the situation in my eyes.

Thank you for your opinion.
It seems to be the standard, reasonable, rational and logical attitude towards both homosexuality and adoption by them.
Having seen a lot of debate on religion either for or against, I would be interested to see other opinions and more especially the opinions of those who call themselves "Christian" towards the most vulnerable people in society.

Agreed.

As nice as this sounds in the abstract, I would argue that the child's needs come first. If there is a heterosexual couple that is appropriate, I believe they should be given priority.


It is not about what is fair to same sex couples but what is best for the child. Obviously love is in short supply enough to be choosy. If there are no other alternatives than an appropriate gay couple could suffice. Naturally it should be up to the agency to decide, I don't think there should be any hard and fast rules set by the government.

Big Bro

I agree with Bro. Even single parenting is preferable IMO.
I know it sounds unreasonable, but there are some issues surrounding the behaviour of gay men in particular which concern me.
By no means a gay-basher, the behaviour of unregulated males (by that I mean the absence of a moderating female influence in the home) and the...difficult to say without sounding offensive but...more promiscuous sexual attitude of some gay men, concerns me when the subject of impressionable and vulnerable children is involved.

Do you think then that children should always be given to the mother and that a father can't bring up a child on his own?
Have you ever socialised with a gay couple?

We have to remember that, harsh though it is, no-one, regardless of his or her sexuality, has the right to be a parent.

The child is the only person that matters so any argument as to whether people of the same sex should be allowed to adopt must focus solely on whether it is in the best interests of the child.

I don't doubt that many gay couples could easily provide some of the things (eg love, security) required to raise a happy, healthy child. But what about emotional support during, say, puberty when a little girl really needs her mum and a little boy really needs his dad? I can only speak for myself but I would have been horrified at having to dicuss menstruation with my dad or tell him I think it may be time for my first bra.

If there is a suitable mixed-sex couple (and I say this because sexual-orientation isn't the issue) then I believe it is kinder on the child to be placed with them.

Children need the influence from both male and female parents (or parent figures) and, like others have said before me, the child is the only thing that matters.

That's a good point, rodog.

In the UK there is a shortage of healthy babies to adopt but older children and those with behavioural problems or disabilities are harder to place.

I would never advocate a child remaining in care when there is a gay couple who could give him a loving home.