Single fathers.....adoption!!

Should single men be able to adopt children?

  • yes

    Votes: 10 90.9%

  • no

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Total voters
    11
L

lucifers angel

same shit, differant day!!
Registered Senior Member
I was reading in a magazine last night, that more and more single males are now adopting children from all races and ages, i was adimittidly glad to see this, but i think the system is still wrong, because, it goes in this order

Hetrosexual couples
single women
homosexual couples
and last single males

i have a few questions i want to ask, why are single dads less important than homosexual couples?

can't a single man love and care for a child like a women/hetrosexual couple/homosexual couple can?

what makes them any differant?

this man who adopted 2 children addmitted that he was faced with lots of dirty looks and lots of speculation about his intentions,

so do you think its ok for a single man to adopt?
why do homosexual couples get to adopt before single men?
 
interesting LA, as far as i know single people (period) would have a VERY hard time adopting in australia (ignoring personal relationships like brothers, uncles, and grandparents ect)

As for gay adoption unfortunatly its illegal here. Sad isnt it:(
 
Asguard said:
interesting LA, as far as i know single people (period) would have a VERY hard time adopting in australia (ignoring personal relationships like brothers, uncles, and grandparents ect)

As for gay adoption unfortunatly its illegal here. Sad isnt it:(
Click to expand...

i will not answer that! i just want to know why homosexual couples take preferance over a straight single man!
 
im sorry, i wasnt trying to divert your thread
I was actually lementing the whole system. Yes i think a couple is more stable than a single parent because you 2 potentual income earners (wonder what they would say about poligiomost relationships)

However i think men and women should be equal on that list just as i think gays and straight should be equal.

In other words the list should go

Couples
Singles
 
Asguard said:
im sorry, i wasnt trying to divert your thread
I was actually lementing the whole system. Yes i think a couple is more stable than a single parent because you 2 potentual income earners (wonder what they would say about poligiomost relationships)

However i think men and women should be equal on that list just as i think gays and straight should be equal.

In other words the list should go

Couples
Singles
Click to expand...

then we're on the same wave length, there have been couples who are living with each other and not married adopt but they tend to foster more than adopt
 
actually i have one slight adition (just because i like to complicate everything:p)

I dont think a couple should out rank a single next of kin

for instance if a 20 year old brother (sister) wants to adopt there brother\sister and so do an aunt and uncle i think the direct family member should have first "dibs" (im sorry, i know that was crude but i couldnt think of an apropriate word, its midnight and im tired:p) if they have the means to care for them.
 
Asguard said:
actually i have one slight adition (just because i like to complicate everything:p)

I dont think a couple should out rank a single next of kin

for instance if a 20 year old brother (sister) wants to adopt there brother\sister and so do an aunt and uncle i think the direct family member should have first "dibs" (im sorry, i know that was crude but i couldnt think of an apropriate word, its midnight and im tired:p) if they have the means to care for them.
Click to expand...

agreed i nk the child should go to the brother or sister!! chances are they would've lived with them anyway so why change the kids routine!!
 
I had a friend, a social worker that worked for the Childrens aid society. First off there are hardly any babies up for adoption unless they have severe medical conditions. Most of which were babies from Crack heads or some other Drug addiction.

Anyway the first priority always goes to heterosexual couples. Then it goes from there.
Even those couples most of them wait yrs on a waiting list to adopt, a child from this country anyway.

I think a single parent should be able to adopt, if found to be suitable. I find it a bit more odd for a single man to adopt. I would think they wouldn't come across that much.

I still have issues with homosexuals adopting children.
 
shorty_37 said:
I still have issues with homosexuals adopting children.
Click to expand...

why? seriously, how are gays gonna be worse parents than so many others. you're giving some kid a home and a family, and people get teased no matter what background they're from.

back on topic, i'd love to have kids, but i'd be very reluctant to adopt kids as a single male. dealing with so many people's suspicions of you would be wearisome.
 
codanblad said:
why? seriously, how are gays gonna be worse parents than so many others. you're giving some kid a home and a family, and people get teased no matter what background they're from.

back on topic, i'd love to have kids, but i'd be very reluctant to adopt kids as a single male. dealing with so many people's suspicions of you would be wearisome.
Click to expand...

I think the only way a man could get away with adopting a baby is if he were gay and the baby were a girl.
All others would be thought of as a pedophile. As if a man can't want a child.

I think anyone who has the child's best interests in mind should be allowed to adopt.
 
how sad is that:(

i was talking to the scout leader at my old group a long time ago, he was telling me that when he first started if a kid (of either gender) injured themselves he would put his arm around them to comfert them. As it went along (he was quite old when i knew him) it became a danger to himself to do this because he would be acused of pediphila for doing it (teachers had the same problem). Where as my mum (who is a primary school teacher) can do this without any fear of it being taken as anything other than comfert. This is one of the reasons its getting so hard to get male teachers, especially in primary schools.
 
Asguard said:
how sad is that:(

i was talking to the scout leader at my old group a long time ago, he was telling me that when he first started if a kid (of either gender) injured themselves he would put his arm around them to comfert them. As it went along (he was quite old when i knew him) it became a danger to himself to do this because he would be acused of pediphila for doing it (teachers had the same problem). Where as my mum (who is a primary school teacher) can do this without any fear of it being taken as anything other than comfert. This is one of the reasons its getting so hard to get male teachers, especially in primary schools.
Click to expand...

we hear stories like that all the time, my playgroup leader, if a child hurt themselves they would "Kiss is better" but now they can't do that, she wont even sit the child on her knee because of false accusations
 
lucifers angel said:
we hear stories like that all the time, my playgroup leader, if a child hurt themselves they would "Kiss is better" but now they can't do that, she wont even sit the child on her knee because of false accusations
Click to expand...

At the Catholic school that I work at, before you can apply you have to go to some ethics class. The whole thing pretty talks about how to spot abuse and talks about a whole series of actions that are allowed and not allowed with children. I remember one of their things was that kids over 4 or 5 weren't allowed on the knee. They at least were willing to acknowledge that it was pretty obvious in telling the difference between a hug that was one of comfort, praise or something along those lines and a hug that was between lovers...

When I was in university, our education professors would tell us that if a child looked like they needed some form of comfort or looked in a loving mood that you should tell them to stop, get away from you, and hug themselves. Well, if there was a very small child (under 7) and they came to hug you, you could remain standing and put one arm around them before shooing them away from you.
 
angrybellsprout said:
At the Catholic school that I work at, before you can apply you have to go to some ethics class. The whole thing pretty talks about how to spot abuse and talks about a whole series of actions that are allowed and not allowed with children. I remember one of their things was that kids over 4 or 5 weren't allowed on the knee. They at least were willing to acknowledge that it was pretty obvious in telling the difference between a hug that was one of comfort, praise or something along those lines and a hug that was between lovers...

When I was in university, our education professors would tell us that if a child looked like they needed some form of comfort or looked in a loving mood that you should tell them to stop, get away from you, and hug themselves. Well, if there was a very small child (under 7) and they came to hug you, you could remain standing and put one arm around them before shooing them away from you.
Click to expand...

Ugh. That's sad.

You make me want to consider homeschooling my kids. Kids are kids and sometimes they need and want a hug. How can someone even advocate shooing them away.:(

I hope it never gets that bad here in Australia.
 
i hate to tell you but they already are bells, ask any male school teacher what would happen to them if they hugged a child
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top