Been a while since I've viewed this topic, time to play the catch up game.
I'm saying that the contract will serve as an oath, and in a way a privilege. You are given the privilege to adopt. You will have to vow and yield whatever the conditions was stated in the contract. For this case, the child, it will be assumed that you will take care of him/her until they are old enough to take care of him/her self. Consequences of not yielding to the contract are also stated. That way the child is ensured some saftey, and is also considered the child's right.
Apologies if I misinterpret this. I've lost my train of though since I last posted.
Is the suggestion that since the effect of discrimination isn't guaranteed, it's not necessarily an issue, and therefore it only needs to be considered if it goes out of hand afterwards? In this case, it would void the contract?
A fair point, and I think when considered a gay couple alone, it makes sense. Being gay shouldn't prevent the couple from adopting.
However, the stance I'm taking is that being straight is a preferable trait over gay, not an outright ban on gay adoption. If the possibility of discrimination, a voided contract and therefore a child parent-less (again) can be avoided by taking a straight couple over a gay couple, why would you take the chance?
Again, I'd like to restate that I don't think that in every situation a straight couple takes priority over a gay couple. In this scenario I'm considering parents that are deemed equally capable, irrespective of their sexuality. I can see no reason to take the gay couple over a straight couple in this scenario. From this I'm concluding that being gay is a negative factor when it comes to adoption. The weight of the negative factor is something I'm uncertain of.
-------------
He means they should not be restricted from adopting. But that is not what Seikend is suggesting. He is saying straight couples should have priority over gay couples when adopting. But that isn't a solution to anything! If gay couples are still allowed to adopt, they will adopt another child. So instead of giving them the kid they want and risking bullying of that kid, they are given another kid that they want to risk that same bullying. The only solution to this "problem" would be to restrict them from adopting.
The "not getting the child they want" point is invalid. If the gay couple get a child over a straight couple, you end up with a straight couple not getting the kid they want. Works both ways.
Addressing the same risk issue: I'm not sure what the "problem" you're suggesting is in the first place.
You make the assumption that the number of children who need to be adopted is greater than, or equal to the number of parents willing to and capable of adopting
(number of potential parents <= number of potential children). and so the decision is whether a parent is suitable or not.
My point makes the assumption that a preference between potential parents must be made, i.e. there is a scarcity in children who need to be adopted.
(number of potential parents > number of potential children)
To use my point in a scenario where there are more potential children than parents is taking it out of context. It is irrelevant, as you are suggesting a scenario where the decision is whether a parent is suitable or not, whilst my point is in the scenario where the decision is what parent is more suitable.
In a situation where you have two equal parents, the risk of bullying is a deciding factor. In a situation where it's either be adopted or not be adopted, the risk of bullying is not a deciding factor.
Also, my point is not completely void. I understand that generally, there are far more children than potential parents out there. But, this is not guaranteed in every local community. It also stands in an isolated situation, where you consider an individual child and potential parents.
-------------
Also, your reason for giving preference to straight couples is a problem with society, not with the gay couple. Your idea only reinforces that unfair discrimination while fighting it is a step toward equality.
Again, think of the gay children.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11621922&postcount=40
First section.
-------------
Think that's me pretty much caught up. Tell me if I missed anything significant.