NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposal For Adoption Rights and Controls

Here is the new proposal for same sex couples being allowed to adopt, and this time the inclusion of rights for children that are adopted or in foster care.

Again I hope you will support it. Please if you are not a UN Delegate lobby and try and gain the support of your regional delgate so everyone will get a chance to vote.

Here is a copy of the proposal-

Part One- The Safety of Adopted Children/Children in Foster Care

1) Regular checks to be carried out (without prior warning) on foster carers homes and children homes. Also, checks at adoptive parents homes for the first two years of the adoption.
2) Interviews with the children to be done. These will be done under parental/guardian supervision. The child must be allowed to say their true feeling without intimidation for the foster parent/carer or adopted parent.
3) The establishment of special free charity helplines for children who feel threatened by carers or foster parents or while in care homes/living in foster care or adoptive homes.


Part Two- Same Sex Couples Inclusion in Adoption/Fostering of Children

1) Allow same sex couples the same right as heterosexual couples to adopt or foster child. However, couples wishing to adopt/foster will have to partake in a screening programme to deem suitability and if the child will have contact with a suitable role model of a person of the opposite sex to the couple (i.e. a sister/brother or a parent of the couple. These criteria will be laid out by national governments.
2) The national governments’ criteria will be subject to UN scrutiny.
3) The inclusion of both of the couples name (if they so wish) on the documents relating to right to be guardian(s). This is to ensure the future well-being of the child if one of the parents dies.
4) The same tax rates and benefits to be give to same sex parents as to heterosexual parents to ensure the well-being of the child.

the child will have contact with a suitable role model of a person of the opposite sex to the couple

How could you possibly define suitable role model? How can you even choose someone a role model?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

How could you possibly define suitable role model? How can you even choose someone a role model?

for one example - would u class and transvetite or a transexual woman a suitable role model?

for one example - would u class and transvetite or a transexual woman a suitable role model?
It would depend on what they where like. Would a fundamental Christian class a Buddhist as one?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

It would depend on what they where like. Would a fundamental Christian class a Buddhist as one?

Yes - the point that i was trying to make is one that a child should have influence from both sexes. God why do some people always take things toi the extreme!!!!!

PS - the suitable role model would be defined by the individual nations states - so you choose what you to believe to be 1!

Do you have any research that shows a child is better off with access to a parental figure of the opposite sex?

I support your idea in principal, but the people of Postmodernist Thought take issue with the feasibility of providing said access.

Yes - the point that i was trying to make is one that a child should have influence from both sexes. God why do some people always take things toi the extreme!!!!!

PS - the suitable role model would be defined by the individual nations states - so you choose what you to believe to be 1!
If you leave it up to individual nations some will take it to the extreme. It can be used as an excuse for indoctrination or as a loop hole to make sure same sex couples don't adopt (no one is suitable). Personally we'd be a lot happier if that entire clause was omitted. I don't see a way to make that work.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I cannot support due to the second part. My own nation has many cases where people are raised by same-sex couples with no access to the opposite sex on a regular basis without them ending up with any mental or social problems. Hell, I have people sometimes being raised across race or, due to a recent decision involving the vampirism virus, across species borders.

If people can turn out relatively normal after being raised by someone with different dietary and activity requirements for being healthy, I don't see how the sexual orientation of people with the same dietary and activity requirements will be adversely affecting them just because of sexual preference.

In addition to the loopholes and all the ways it can be exploited, I don't see why that second rule is even needed.

It seems DISCRIMINATORY to me, to say that if a same sex couples want to adopt, they must have with them a suitable "normal" role model of the opposite sex.

Under that principal, single parents wouldn't be able to exist becuase there isn't a "father" or "mother" figure. Under that principal, single-gender schools wouldn't be allowed, because children there are never exposed to members of the opposite sex. Millions of children are raised just fine under single-parent households.

The other point (correct me if i'm wrong) that i'm assuming you're trying to make is that you don't want children being exposed constantly to a culture in which homosexuality is "normal." To me, there's nothing more wrong than that than say, children raised under a communist-minded household, children living in a Republican household, children raised in a heterosexual household. What is "right" and what is "normal" is all in the eye of the beholder. Denying people the right to raise children because you "disagree with their culture" isn't right.

Also, #3... where it says, "if they so wish" makes the whole clause kinda pointless. "Adoptive parents will have to do this, if they want to."

Well, those are my thoughts. I would say, what's the point of "Abortion Rights for Same Sex Couples" anyhow? Just say something along the lines of:

Adults who wish to adopt a child shall not be discriminated against based on ethnicity, religion, political viewpoint, or sexual preference.

Seeing that the UN supports equal rights for same sex couples and marriage for same sex couples isn't it implied that they have equal adoption rights as equal spouses to heterosexual couples (see Gay Rights Resolution, Rights of Women and Minorities, Gay Marriage). How about people in indivual countries decide if they want a 4th law regarding the equality of homosexuals, eh?

A new amendment that we vote on, declaring thatPilot's homosexuals are equal
under the law to hetereosexuals. I am mortified to discover there’s reason to believe they weren't before.

Look eveyone - you cant please everyone on these issues - you cant please everyone at all. Some of you will be happy with it and some will not!!!!!
Even if there were changes some people would still not be happy with it.

The reason i published the proposal here was to draw people's attention to it - then if they believed in it then they could vote (as 11 people already have at this time!) and if they didnt support it fair enough. Publishing it on here as well as on the proposal list gains a wider audience (and it also saves time trawling through proposals you could give two hoots about!).

As to those who are ripping it into pieces - i give you a challenge - to write a proposal which every 126,426 nations will support fully and see how you fair!!!!!!!!!!

Cosmia

Try only 15,000 at the most.

Also, our ripping it to pieces are our reasons for not supporting it. You can get a very large majority of the UN to support a proposal if you try hard enough.

2) The national governments’ criteria will be subject to UN scrutiny.



If you leave it up to individual nations some will take it to the extreme. It can be used as an excuse for indoctrination or as a loop hole to make sure same sex couples don't adopt (no one is suitable). Personally we'd be a lot happier if that entire clause was omitted. I don't see a way to make that work.


Not if UN Review determines it to be unjust, as is allowed by the point following your objection.

The other point (correct me if i'm wrong) that i'm assuming you're trying to make is that you don't want children being exposed constantly to a culture in which homosexuality is "normal."

If you are allowing them to be adopted by same sex couples then you are allowing constant exposure. This addition stems from problems associated with a substantial majority of children being raised in single gender households developing psychological/social disorders. There is plenty of research on that matter.

Any criteria can be deemed discriminatory, that is no reason to disallow screening. So long as there is a rational justification for the criteria, and the UN has power to review that criteria, absent an adequate reason to the contrary, such criteria should be allowed.

If you are allowing them to be adopted by same sex couples then you are allowing constant exposure. This addition stems from problems associated with a substantial majority of children being raised in single gender households developing psychological/social disorders. There is plenty of research on that matter.
What about teachers, coaches, media icons, friend's parents, ect. It may not take The Village to raise a child but you raise a child in the village (no pun intended).

I'm not saying the people who raise you have no impact (ask Des about her mother) but studies have shown that the most important factor in your upbringing is the society you are brought up in.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

What about teachers, coaches, media icons, friend's parents, ect. It may not take The Village to raise a child but you raise a child in the village (no pun intended).

I'm not saying the people who raise you have no impact (ask Des about her mother) but studies have shown that the most important factor in your upbringing is the society you are brought up in.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Studies have also shown celery to cause cancer, sunlight to be harmless (beyond sunburns), and several medications now banned in the US for being too dangerous to be safe.

Just because someone does a study doesn't mean you should believe it. Find out who paid for the studies first. 9 times out of 10, that invalidates the study as reliable.

Studies have also shown celery to cause cancer, sunlight to be harmless (beyond sunburns), and several medications now banned in the US for being too dangerous to be safe.

Just because someone does a study doesn't mean you should believe it. Find out who paid for the studies first. 9 times out of 10, that invalidates the study as reliable.

The best one is on water. Plain old water. You know how toxic that stuff is?
I thind it was funded by Budweiser and CA Milk Advisory Board;)

00C: TBNW, My gilfriend works in child development. The only reason I bring the studies up is because of how often I see and hear about them. Most on single gender also study impacts of outside forces. Society is secondary to family, except in very small highly interdependant communities. Ones that are as small as a tribe or village.