Agree or disagree: People should be able to adopt or foster kids despite their race, religion, sexuality and relationship status?

[Razp_Sorbet]

Children need safe loving homes. Why should it matter who is providing that safe, loving home?

Explain your reasoning.

Agree

Disagree

Agree/disagree with some.

[MisterWack]

Agree!
As you say and I quote, “ Children need safe loving homes. Why should it matter who is providing that safe, loving home?” Which totally agree with because as long as the place is warm, welcoming, loving, nurturing, and safe it doesn’t matter the sexuality, relationship status, religion, race, etc. of the adopter.

Again: We are going by safety which includes against convicted felons, criminals, thugs, drug dealers, domestic abusers, and sexual abusers / child murders. So no it isn’t unlimited, just assuming that if ALL applicants’ households are safe & they are good law biding citizens then the child should be allowed in their caring arms regardless of race, religion, relationship, sexuality, etc. It doesn’t matter if it is indeed in a safe place.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Yes people seem to be missing the "safe and loving" part 🤣

[MisterWack]

@Razp_Sorbet A lot of trolls over the years have always attacked me saying I’m missing that point so, I write it in just to prevent BS like that….
I understood the assignment, these people are filled with too much hate and not a lot of heart and soul.

[Grond21]

Race does not matter. Religion almost always does not matter, but there are some really insane cults out there and we would be endangering the kids to let them go into one of those homes. Same sexuality does not matter as crazy, because what kind of normal person would put a kid in the home of a pedophile? They do need good loving homes, and that's the opposite. In terms of relationship status, it's well known that having a father and mother is significantly better for children, so that should be prioritized

[Razp_Sorbet]

Safe would be the priority...

[Grond21]

I should have edited this first.

*Saying sexuality does not matter is crazy*

And yes, safety needs to be a prerequisite

[Razp_Sorbet]

I wouldn't consider pedophilia a sexuality. And obviously being in a home of a pedophile wouldn't be safe so it's a non issue

[Grond21]

Sadly, not everyone agrees with you. So making some kind of blank tolerance-focused standard would end up backfiring as certain minorities would claim to be marginalized in order to be able to adopt, when in reality they are unsafe

[Razp_Sorbet]

You realize the adoption process is very long and requires extensive background checks as is? I'm not suggesting that changes.

[Grond21]

I'm aware of that, and I agree with you that it should not be less extensive. But you are suggesting some changes, no?

[Razp_Sorbet]

I'm suggesting that LGBT couples, single people, people who have disabilities etc should be able to adopt. If they are financial able to and pass all the checks then why not?

[Grond21]

If you had two couples and one child, would you want them to go to the couple who were objectively best?

[Razp_Sorbet]

Of course. The best doesn't necessarily mean the heterosexual couple though 😊

[Grond21]

Statistically it does. A mother and father is by far the best in terms of education, intelligence, emotional stability, health, longevity, relationship quality, and achievement level. Given that, would you choose the heterosexual couple, all else being equal?

[Razp_Sorbet]

There is no evidence to support that claim

[Razp_Sorbet]

Infact the evidence actually suggest that children raised in same sex families do better in some aspects 😊 but everything else they turn out just as well.

[Grond21]

The evidence to support it is overwhelming.
So let's take a hypothetical. If it could be shown to you that the evidence supports heterosexual couples as the most helpful for children, would you support the heterosexual couple over the lgbtq couple?

[Razp_Sorbet]

Show me the evidence 😊

[Grond21]

Can you answer my hypothetical question first?

[Razp_Sorbet]

If there was a drastic difference (which there isn't) then yes a child should go to a heterosexual couple over a same sex couple.

Though the reality is there's not enough heterosexual couples willing to adopt children.

[Grond21]

Thank you for answering my question, I appreciate it.

To my understanding, at least in the US, there's about a million children needing to be adopted every year. But about one and a half million heterosexual couples.

Here is some of the research for you dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/.../

[Razp_Sorbet]

None of these articles seem to be about the topic at hand which is heterosexual vs homosexual couples.

These studies just happen to be about heterosexual couples, not because that is what is best but because that is what they studied.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091994/

Also there is about 300k children waiting to be adopted every year and maybe a million or 2 couples in the USA waiting to adopt... Yet only about a third of those kids ever get adopted. Kids who have traumatic pasts are far less likely to be adopted by hetero couples.

[Grond21]

I thought the topic was heterosexual vs all other options. No?

It is showing that heterosexual couples are best, though your research shows homosexual couples are a close second if not tied, which does make sense. So if you are right and those two are equally beneficial, it would still preclude all other options.

Thanks for getting those numbers

[Razp_Sorbet]

You were arguing that heterosexual was better than homosexual couples. Which is untrue. There is also research showing that children with one single adoptive parent also fare just as well as those with two parents.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Logically this doesn't make sense:

"Also there is about 300k children waiting to be adopted every year and maybe a million or 2 couples in the USA waiting to adopt"

So if for every kid in foster care there are 3-6 families waiting to adopt them, how come most kids don't get adopted?

I smell bias in the paper...

[Razp_Sorbet]

@BoopBoopBeep because most people want to adopt newborns that have no health issues or disabilities and are white. They don't want the kids that already have trauma.

[Grond21]

So were we talking past each other then? I thought I was responding to you saying that relationship status shouldn't matter at all, and I was saying that heterosexual couples are the best parents. Then giving stats and research to show that. You showed me that homosexual couples have similar levels of success from that one study, which I think is counterbalanced by other studies, but I'm not trying to get too into the weeds here so we can set that aside. I wanted to know if we could at least say that having two parents is better than all the other arrangements, but now you mentioned someone said one adoptive parent is just as good? I know that isn't true as the vast majority of research, and there has been a vast amount, contradicts that. It's been pretty clear

[Razp_Sorbet]

The issue is you're not looking at the right research. There's a difference between research that looks into families where there was a mum and dad and one left or was never around and research that looks into single parents who adopted. They are different situations and you can't use information from one to refute the other.

[Grond21]

Oh, interesting. Yeah I can see what you are saying. In terms of biologically single vs adopted single, it would make sense that there is a big difference

[Razp_Sorbet]

Yeah being a single adoptive parent is a choice in every aspect, chose to be single, chose to adopt. whereas typically being a single regular parent is often not by your own choice, either you had a one night stand, your partner left you, died, or was just never in the picture all of these things can create trauma in not only your life but the child's too.

[Grond21]

That is well explained, thank you. It makes perfect sense that it should be a separate category, and also that it is much healthier for the child.
My intuition says that a heterosexual couple is still best, but I don't have the data to back that up. So I guess at this point it's just an opinion.

[DizzyDesii]

Yes kids need loving homes but sometimes people of a different race just “don’t get it”. So sure do what you feel is best for the kid but in actuality, its not always whats best for the kid. As for sexuality, if the kid is already going through the “i think im gay phase” then a religious couple probably won't handle that in the best interests of the kid. I think single parents can be great parents but then you have to be bashed by couples and non-parents who think you’re not enough for the kid. So is everything ever truly in anyones best interests? Just do what you’re gonna do at the end of the day cause there will always be something that or someone who doesn't agree, cope, relate, etc

[Anonymous]

If you are going to be pro-life, you cannot sit here and tell people, some people should not adopt especially if you aren't personally adopting or fostering. As long as the individuals all go through the same vetting process as everyone else, making sure they are financially stable, have a room for the child, come recommended from family/friends, have gone through the courses required by the state, and pass home inspection, please give these children a home or safe space until they can be adopted.

[AI Opinion]

Absolutely, love knows no bounds, and neither should the ability to provide a nurturing home for a child in need. When it comes to adoption or fostering, the focus should squarely be on the ability of the individuals to offer a stable, loving, and secure environment. Kids thrive on love, understanding, and support, not on the basis of their caregivers' race, religion, sexuality, or whether they're single or coupled up. What truly matters is the openness of the heart and the willingness to lovebomb a child into feeling welcome, secure, and cherished. So, let's champion for more love, more homes, and more families of all shapes and sizes coming together. Love doesn't discriminate, and neither should we when it comes to creating families.

[petitedollbabee]

Aslong as you have the time, energy and financial stability, then I agree fully.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

The only people who shouldn’t be allowed to adopt are those convicted of sex crimes and domestic violence. Ideally everyone would meet a certain standard and there’s obviously material aspects to consider like finances, the size of the home, etc. but other than that if they’re willing and everything checks out, I say let everyone from single moms to disabled couples foster/adopt children

[Razp_Sorbet]

Yes!! Often those who are discriminated against in the adoption process are the ones most willing to take on the harder children

[CB-Raido-Time]

I noticed you left out single men adopting.

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time usually when someone says "from [something] to [something]" you fill in the blanks in-between 😊 hope this helps.

[CB-Raido-Time]

I replied that way because I already know single men are discriminated against when it comes to adopting especially adopting girls. Oh they say men are allowed to adopt girls, however they know those agencies will never call contact them for adoption.

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time if they're specifically looking for a girl that is a red flag. Otherwise they will be vetted the same as everyone else and a kid will be placed appropriately

[CB-Raido-Time]

A red flag? How about this, would it be a red flag if a woman was specifically looking for a boy? And again as I said they say single men can adopt, however they know no agencies will ever follow up with single men adopting.

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time yes it would be. Having a gender preference in a child is weird

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

@CB-Raido-Time is correct, what he’s talking about is a form of discrimination. What he’s failing to acknowledge, however, is that the reason this discrimination exists is because statistically a cis hetero man is much more likely to be an abusive man, on average, in comparison to a queer individual or a cis woman. These groups are not free from abuse, but in a majority of documented cases the most abusive group is that of straight men. I agree it’s unfair to put you in that category when you are not an abusive man, but they have no way to tell the difference between you and a man who “adopts” a daughter to groom her into his personal victim. Abuse is rampant in foster care and they need to be cautious, but I do send my condolences that you have been unable to adopt a daughter like you hoped.

[CB-Raido-Time]

Do you actually honestly think they care about the safety of children or a child's well being now that they have done this to children of all ages world wide?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/TnyVN19aCZXA/

[CB-Raido-Time]

The answer is NO they could care less about children or their safety or their well being. What they have done is they have removed men from children and children from men in order to carry out their agenda which they now have. There are not many men left to protect their children after pitting women against men and men against women. See how that worked?

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time solid source you got there 💀 literally the same as citing YouTube

[CB-Raido-Time]

Same as youtube? Well let's examine your take on that and let's start with this question. Are you a medical doctor and why that question? That question because literally thousands of doctors and monitions too worldwide are trying to expose it while sites like youtube and propaganda MSM are covering it up. That said how about you do you know or have you met anyone personally that has been injured by it? I certainly have two with strokes one with a missing leg and a little one that past away, that not to mention the lady I spoke to at the store right after all them injections started her revealing that all the pregnant women at her Church were having miscarriages following that injection. By the way youtube deleted my account without even so much as a warning for trying to warn others not to take that shot.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

This took such a left turn from “single fathers are discriminated against” to “vaccines kill children”

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time that website is just a site where people can post anything they want. If you can post actual evidence by actual medical doctors maybe then I'll believe you

[CB-Raido-Time]

As for as gender preference goes I'll ask you this. Have you even taken care of children? I certainly did during the 80's boys and girls too. To start with when it comes to taking care of children boys are not the same as girls and boys can certainly be harder for men to manage them especially psychically especially when it comes to men boys can and to have a problem when it comes for men trying to keep them under control boys can see men see men as competition to them and can and do get psychical with men. During my sitting days I had a boy point a gun in my and his sister's direction and pull the trigger and luckily the gun was not loaded. I had a phillip's screwdriver thrown at my face that wizzed past my head so fast I heard it whistle past my ear as it continued to travel past me into the room bedroom down the hall hitting the bedroom door as it continued to make the turn hitting the walls as it made it turns. I also had to psychically hold down a 12 year old that was trying to beat his sister up and it took everything I had to keep him pined down until his mom got home.

Part 1

[CB-Raido-Time]

Part 2 - Girls can be challenging too I know that but for the most part that usually isn't a psychical thing it's usually and yes or no thing when it comes to girls. And I could go into a thousands other reasons too why I wanted to adopt girls not boys for example I was a boy myself been around boys as a boy grew up one too. Boys were not missing from my life's experience girls were. But that said as I already said I no longer have an interest in adopting anymore now I'm too old too tired and I have no trust in the system I have to trust in females even as a adopter. It's not the same world anymore is used to be I don't even want to be around females anymore it's too dangerous too hostile for men and even boys included that not to mention nearly everyone in the world has taken that shot too and that would propose the risk of having to lose someone due to that shot and I wouldn't want to end up having to go though the pain of that either.

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time I have taken care of children. Both are as difficult as each other. Their gender has nothing to do with it. They're kids. They no absolutely nothing about the world, it's the parents job to teach them how to regulate their feelings and be good members of society. I'm sorry you had to deal with those things but it could have happened no matter the gender. Heck I have 3 cousins from the same family who are close in age. The two oldest girls have had trouble with the police, gangs and god knows what else. The middle girl stole a car with her friends and the driver crashed it, putting one of the other girls in a coma. Luckily my cousin isn't totally a moron and stayed with the injured girl as the others ran. Anyway, the youngest boy, their brother. Sweet angel, very quiet, wouldn't hurt a fly, gets high grades, doesn't get into trouble ever.

They are a product of their upbringing and the people they surround themselves with.

[CB-Raido-Time]

That is a interesting story and were those children you mentioned in a dad-less home? And in my experience yes gender does play a role too I guarantee having to subdue a girl out going out of control is way easier than a boy and you can't tell me any different than that I know better by experience as I told you it took everything I had to keep him on the floor until his Mom got there. And that aside you seem to have looked over something so I will repeat it here again. I wanted to adopt girls not boys for example I was a boy myself been around boys as a boy grew up one too. Boys were not missing from my life's experience girls were.

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time no they weren't.

I still think it's weird to want to adopt a specific gender. Your reasoning doesn't make a difference.

[CB-Raido-Time]

You don't get it because you don't want to it because that would put you going against the grain and there is no point in further trying to explain when there is double agendas and standards involved.

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time there's nothing to get or explain more. You wanting a girl for a child because you "didn't experience girls" is weird. I'm glad you didn't honestly... Im not saying you had bad intentions but I don't think you were an ideal candidate for a good reason.

[CB-Raido-Time]

Two homosexual men adopting a male child also sounds weird. Do you have a problem with that too?

77

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time it doesn't sound weird m you're just homophobic 😊

[CB-Raido-Time]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots there especially going by your own logic. Two homosexuals adopting a boy? Yet a straight man because he prefers to adopt a girl means there's something wrong with that situation? Adding things together it sounds like your guise of protection is either only about protecting girls OR you feel like the girls straight men would adopt would lead to competition on you yourself. According to your logic you have already excused the part of it that is protection.

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time it's the preference that's the issue. Every adoption agency has issues with preferences and will not adopt to people who have a gender preference.

[CB-Raido-Time]

@cupcakeTheDestroyer If what you claim as to be were true being that straight men were the leading abusers as documented cases abusing children were true then ask yourself where and how are all those straight men getting their hands on children when men are practically not even allowed to go near children without all kinds of panic and scrutiny? How is that happening when men especially straight men aren't even allowed to be around children? How did those tales get started? Maybe the linked video can point you in that direction. https://www.bitchute.com/video/M-Dtcvqcjc8

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Y’all are both insanely angry and not thinking clearly. I have no desire to continue to be part of this

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time most abuse cases happen within families. Hope this helps.

[CB-Raido-Time]

The DHHS data shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006,
70.6% were abused by their mothers, whereas only 29% were abused by their fathers.
And of children who died at the hands of one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.8% were killed by their mothers, whereas only 29.2% were killed by their fathers.

Hope that helps.

[Razp_Sorbet]

@CB-Raido-Time I am referring to sexual abuse, but thank you for the useful statistics.

[CB-Raido-Time]

Oh believe me the majority of sexual exploitation are none other than women. What do you think the whole Epistine's island was about and who do you think supplied their children their girls whored them out to rich men were? WOMEN, that's who. And since I don't go to youtube anymore, search youtube for the biglist documentary that features over 200 female teacher's having sex with their under age students and that's just the teachers, most you won't hear about because it's not fitting for the agenda. And I knew one woman personally who hit on a 14/15 year old friend of mine, moved in with him, had a child by him, all before he was of age, cops knew it, the whole town practically knew it or could see it, him driving her truck her under his arm her is her mid late 30's with several children she already had by her ex in Ohio. And when she got jealous of him hanging around us and refused to sell to us because of it, what did the cops do? They came out and refused to hear about her relationship with an under age boy but instead threatened to arrest us. My ex's friend or friend at that time, she whored out her 7/8 year old girls back in the 2000's. Done even try to give me the line women don't mess with children sexually, oh yes they do too.

[CB-Raido-Time]

I want to address something stated by CupcakeTheDestroyer where CupcakeTheDestroyer stated that statistically a cis hetero man is much more likely to be an abusive man, on average, in comparison to a queer individual or a cis woman.

Let your eyes and your ears be the judge of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_BfG3xrA5k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okVzjTT7qFM

[SamIam96]

It's a sorry state of affairs that a question like this is worth asking.

Conservatives have prioritized their ambitions above the welfare of children. In the process, they've demonized people who aren't religious zealots, sexually the same as themselves and in F/M marriages. Children are nothing more than tools to advance their control and wealth.

In reality, there are two types of people who foster and/or adopt children. Those who are truly good people, wanting to give back. The reasons are many. Some were cared for by good people. Some recognize the good they can do...

The other type, are those that want the state stipend for each child-day. They aren't people who nurturer children. They're barely above predators.

[CheeseMonster]

Of course, as long as they're safe and loving, as you say.

Some people object to certain groups taking in a child because it's not the "best option," but the "best option" obviously isn't a realistic standard for foster or adoptive parents—or there wouldn't be any kids who needed them in the first place.

Of course, if possible, the birth parents should be helped to become the safe and loving home that the child needs (regardless of the birth parents' race, religion, sexuality, relationship, etc). That sadly is not always possible (ex: death), and in those types of cases, the main priority should be for the child to regain some sense of stability and trust with a guardian/s who are ready and able to care for them—not on whether those particular guardians are the "best option" out of every hypothetical possibility...

[JSkye]

I think people should be able to foster kids regardless of their race, sexuality, and relationship status... but there are some dangerous cults out there. I would say that some of those should be a disqualifier.
I'm actually surprised I am saying that, but some cults are actually dangerous for the people that are in them. Subjecting children to that (or worse, indoctrinating them into that), could be considered a form of child endangerment. Cults often qualify under the loose term of religion, so that's the one thing I would have to take exception to of the list.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Yes absolutely. This is why Vetting is an important process

[thegreenyogi]

I totally agree. I am very open to the idea of adopting or having a child through surrogate if say for example I can't have children naturally. And all children deserve love and no one regardless of how they come into taking care of a child is less or more worthy to be a parent.

[Kelly6]

@thegreenyogi I totally agree with this

[thegreenyogi]

@Kelly6 Thank you!!🫶

[bobalife]

Of course, it shouldn’t be a discrimination. Every kid deserves a loving, safe home to go to and be with. It should not be limited to people demographics alone. Some couples would do anything to have kids, but aren’t able to sadly. They also deserve their dream of having a loving family.

[NathanDavis]

maybe at a more functional...

or better said, maybe at a ~a lot less dysfunctional society~ it could work that way... but we're very tricky about things here in America

we just love to make out of all these and a couple an actual big fucking deal of a problem, all the time...

[RageBabe]

I completely agree. What counts is that a child receives a lot of love and emotional support, as well as a healthy, stable household and, of course, financial security, but without the financial security it doesn't make you a bad parent. It's always good to have that security though.

[Account]

I agree. For example here they take into account the financial status a lot. Apart from the other stuff you mentioned it is pretty difficult to adopt here unless you are rich.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I don't think anyone thats not grounded in reality should have kids.
I also don't think the government should have a say in who has kids though, as that privilage will just get abused, and they have shown their moral tendancies, and they are less than justified.

[Ladsin2]

Clearly not despite anything, and it depends on what's best for the child in question. I presume you wouldn't want to put a Trasngender boy in a fundamentalist Muslim household. You may not want to put a young girl in the house of a "Minor Attracted Person", it may be uncomfortable to put a 17 year old girl in a house with a 24 year old sole male home...

[Razp_Sorbet]

Obviously the people would still go through the same Vetting process. In NZ there's also a rule that you must be 25 and 20 years older than who you are adopting unless you are related to the child then you just have to be 20.

[Ladsin2]

Cool, so we both agree there should be some restrictions around who can and can't adopt. Let's do a thought experiment. If it could be shown that homosexual foster parents were 100x more likely to sexually abuse the children in their care, would you be in favor of it for equality, or would you say the risks outweigh the benefits?

[Razp_Sorbet]

Obviously there would still be restrictions. They just shouldn't be based on who you love, your religion, marital status or sexuality.

Of course wouldn't be in favour of that. Fortunately that isn't the case.

[Ladsin2]

Just to be sure I understand your perspective properly. You're saying that even if putting a child in a gay household increased their odds of becoming a victim of sexual assault by 100x you would put them in the house, is that correct? I mean if that sole criterion were that strongly linked to child abuse. I just want to be clear we understand the hypothetical.

[Razp_Sorbet]

No. I said I wouldn't be in favour of that.

[Ladsin2]

Ok, I must've misunderstood your comment. What if there were a 10x increase in the chance of sexual misconduct with gay foster parents? Would that be worth the risk or no?

[Razp_Sorbet]

I feel like you're trying to make a point that doesn't exist.

[Ladsin2]

I'm trying to establish a standard. Do we, or do we not agree that putting children in homes that, by their nature, increase the risk of that child being abused is a bad idea? Since we both do, how significant a difference does it have to be. If short-haired women are 5x more likely to be abusive should we still allow short-haired women to be foster parents. If people with a sixth toe on their left foot are 1000x more likely to abuse children should we still risk it? Etc. I think the question is fairly straight forward.

[Razp_Sorbet]

I'm not entertaining a strawman argument.
The question is simple, agree or disagree.

[Ladsin2]

Cool, we both agree that there have to be some restrictions on who can and cannot adopt children due to potential risk for children.
In Illinois between 33-50% of all sexually abused children were abused by a homosexual. If I understand the abstract correctly that would be quite horrifying. That's despite homosexuals being a significantly lower percentage of the population 1-2% I'm not sure whether or not that trend extends to foster parent percentages or not, but that would be something like 100x greater likelihood of a homsexual abusing the child in their care (don't trust my math.) Does that shock you? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15941101/

[Razp_Sorbet]

That's not saying they were homosexual in sexuality.

[Razp_Sorbet]

It's Just saying that men mostly victimized boys. These are likely from households where a couple is the foster/adoptive parent too...

[Ladsin2]

Is pederasty not a niche application of homosexuality?

[Razp_Sorbet]

I'm just saying this abstract doesn't mean what you think it means. Most pedophiles identify as straight. Pedophiles will assault anyone who is easy to assault.

[Ladsin2]

Any source for that? I would presume straight paedophiles would sexually abuse the opposite sex and gay the same sex. There certainly could be bisexual paedophiles who are indiscriminatory, but I would presume that would be the minority.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Pedophiles don't tend to care about the gender. Some have preferences but ultimately the fact they're prepubescent is what attracts them

stopabusecampaign.org/.../

[art84]

My parents did foster care and it was my brother and me taking in children from babies to up to 8 years old. Definitely showed them Iove as these children came from broken families or homes.

[DrPepper12]

Totally agree! It doesn't matter if they're green and purple and in a pentupple relationship. As long as the kids are raised and cared for with love and resources it's fine with me.

[Anonymous]

As a basic need, children need one consistent carer and that carer can be anyone appropriate.
However, there can be problems later on if the child is of a different race or origin to not only the carer but also the community that they find themselves in.

[Anonymous]

Despite their race or religion I agree (except for religions which I consider to be unhealthy or dangerous... There is only one of those that is a mainstream religion.). But I don't agree despite their sexuality. I don't think people who have sexual relationships with people of the same sex should be raising children because I think it is detrimental to children to be in the care of people I consider to be abnormal and unhealthy.

[motownplayer2000]

No. Some people are not cut out to be parents. We don’t want a bunch of indoctrinated children. We want people who will intentionally raise kids to be productive members of society. This is why we have a much of OF girls and porn is rampant.

[Razp_Sorbet]

You're right Christianity should not be taught to children 😊

[motownplayer2000]

Religion is religion. It’s the non- religious that usually seem to be the most problematic. It’s all indoctrination. But Christians indoctrinate their kids for a purpose and are usually the ones who have better outcomes for society than secular

[TheSpaceGnome]

@motownplayer2000 Thats not true at all, religious people tend to ruin things for society, its the secular who advance progress in societal rights, safety, freedoms, technology, knowledge, etc.

[LiamJHayden]

I would not want worshipers of Moloch or Chemosh adopting children, but in most other instances yes.

[FarmBoy13]

Agree….. if you don’t like kids being raised in certain homes then you need to open your home up to more kids

[Anonymous]

They still need to pass a vetting process, and I don't believe single parents should be able to adopt. The reason for that being is statistically children from single parent homes do far worse than two parent homes. Beyond that I agree with you.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Actually kids adopted into single parent homes fare just as well as two parent homes ☺️

[Opinion Owner]

Keeping in mind here I could care less about the sex, sexuality, race, religion and the like. Just no single parents.

The reason for that is literally 99% of prison inmates in the US are from single parent homes. Plus single parent homes produce more drug addicts, rapists, criminals, abusers, and a whole spectrum of other bad things at 4 times the rate of two parent homes.

Additionally if there is any history what so ever of violent crime, domestic abuse, sex abuse, or really any criminal activity, they should be a hard pass, which would unfortunately preclude the majority of lesbian couples, as lesbian couples have 4 times the rate of domestic abuse than straight couples, and 8 times the rate of domestic abuse than male male gay couples.

[Opinion Owner]

Lady not in the US

[Opinion Owner]

While that may be the truth where you're from, it's not the truth in the states. I read somewhere that you're from NZ, so your comparison is irrelevant

[Opinion Owner]

ifstudies.org/.../less-poverty-less-prison-more-college-what-two-parents-mean-for-black-and-white-children

[Razp_Sorbet]

There's a difference between adopted into single parent home and coming from a single parent home 😊

[Opinion Owner]

Not in the US. Sorry I'm not going to change my mind on this, I've seen what happens in single parent homes first hand.

[PeterLegg91]

As long as the child Is loved etc that's all that matters :)

[CB-Raido-Time]

I have given up on the idea, I no longer seek to foster or adopt any children as I know the rules are set and children aren't coming into my life and I no longer want women coming into my life either, idea's resigned.

[Rohaan2020]

Totally agree with it… i hope everyone thought like this… the world would be a much better place

[Nikki1989]

Agreed 1000%.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with the "sexuality" part, agree with the skin color part, and prefer Christianity as the religion/faith

[msc545]

Agreed. Kids need care.

[Kelly6]

@Razp_Sorbet strongly agree

[Bklynbadboy12]

I agree cause love doesn't have a color

[ChicoFromThe305]

Are they not allowed too?

[gorydetails]

Children need a mother and a father.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Children need a safe loving home. Doesn't matter if it's a mother and father, two mums, or two dads, a single mum or single dad. Something is better than being in foster care forever.

[gorydetails]

It 100% matters. Stats don’t agree with you at all.

[Razp_Sorbet]

They absolutely do agree with me. Two parents are better than one, that is true. But one good parent is better than two bad parents. In regards to it "must" be a mum and dad. No a same sex couple can raise a perfectly healthy, happy, well adjusted child. Yes having a mother and father figure is important but they don't have to be your parents. They can be grandparents, uncles, aunt's, cousins, family friends.

It takes a village as they say.

[gorydetails]

No, same sex couples can not provide what a heterosexual couple can provide. These are facts.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Where are the facts? Show me.

[gorydetails]

lifeisbeautiful.org/.../

[Razp_Sorbet]

Thats about fatherless homes not same sex couple homes 😊 nice try though.

[gorydetails]

Do lesbian households have a father?

[Razp_Sorbet]

No but the context is different. The statistics you posted are from families where a father left, or was never in the picture which creates trauma and negativity in general. Research shows that children adopted into single parent households do just as well as two parent households.

[gorydetails]

No, fathers are important. Mothers are important. Hands down.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Father figures and mother figures are important. But as I said they don't have to be your parents. 😊 Research shows there is no difference between children raised by same sex couple vs heterosexual couples.

[gorydetails]

Yeah, research that pushes an agenda.

[Razp_Sorbet]

No just regular research into family dynamics

[Finchie40]

I agree

[Jennz6]

I’m not really sure

[Anonymous]

Absolutely they should

[Wise4myage]

I definitely agree.

[WhitneySnow]

Agreed

[dudegreat91]

Disagree

[Razp_Sorbet]

Explain.

[dudegreat91]

Probably a muslim couple can adopt some child to radicalize them. But yeah that kind of risk is there in any kind of adoption

[Razp_Sorbet]

That is why people are looked into. If they have ties to terrorist organizations then that wouldn't be a safe home now would it?

[dudegreat91]

Well you can never be fully sure tbh. Foster homes avoid single guys who want to adopt a girl child for a reason

[beefcakebradybatson]

Yep.