Should unmarried couples be allowed to adopt?

Question

Should unmarried couples be allowed to adopt?

Answer 1

I believe singles and/or married couples should be able to adopt.  I know nowadays there are many unmarried couples who have been together forever, but there's something about committment that's missing.  So, as far as unmarried COUPLES, I have to say no.  Just my opinion.

Answer 2

unmarried couples can adopt

Answer 3

If two people can't commit enough to each other to get married, they certainly can't commit enough to each other to raise a child together. Raising children is the biggest commitment a human being can possibly make.

As it stands in the US, many states allow singles to adopt. The adoptive parent certainly has the ability to share parenting with an unrelated domestic partner if they desire.

I live in Massachusetts, where g*y couples can legally wed and adopt children.

Answer 4

yes.  

Answer 5

That's not for me to say.

However it is a fact that married adoptive parents are not immune to divorce!

In the general population only about 25% of children grow up in a traditional two-parent family

For Adoptive families even less (16% of adopted children) grow up in traditional two-parent families.

Answer 6

As an unmarried single mom to my 4 year old who I adopted, I say most definitely!!!

There are no guarantees in life.  Just because a married couple adopts, doesn't mean they they will never divorce or one will never die.

I believe it is very ignorant to think that a single parent (Male or female) cannot raise a happy healthy well adjusted child

Answer 7

In my opinion it should be up to the nmothers and nobody else.

The reality is Christian based Agency's and Paps have their own political and personal agendas.

I think its pathetic how some paps will even lie about their religion just to get a newborn.

Answer 8

No.

The legal entanglement which we call marriage takes time, money and effort to un-entangle, and can be refused by the courts if they feel divorce is not appropriate at this time.

Parenting is a life-long commitment, and if it is to be undertaken with a partner, should be done when the partners are at their most stable, emotionally, psychologically, financially, and in their commitment to their relationship.

Adoptees have enough losses to process without processing the loss of the relationship between their adoptive parents. Of course a piece of paper doesn't guarantee the existence of a relationship, but faced with the increased effort of dissolving a marriage, some folks decide to work just a bit harder on the relationship and find their way back to being fulfilled in that relationship.

Adoption is always to be done for the best welfare and interests of the child. Their needs supersede the desires of the couple.

Besides which, the "piece of paper" argument works both ways. If a couple intends to have a lifelong commitment, what is preventing the formalization of that relationship?

Answer 9

It depends.  As unmarried women are pressured all the time to give up their babies to a "two parent family," it would be hypocritical for these same unmarried people to be trying to obtain an infant from a mother whose only crime is the lack of a wedding ring.  For decades, being unwed put a woman into the firing line of having her baby taken for adoption (often by hospital staff who decided that "adoption was indicated."

The criteria for adopting should logically preclude the criteria that are used to pressure mothers to surrender their babies (and you still see this all over websites as a way to convince mothers of the benefits of surrender:  "Your baby will have a two-parent family").  If the lack of a wedding ring is enough "justification" for taking a baby from a mother for adoption, then it should be required for adopting.    

Answer 10

I don't think they should necessarily have to be married (heck, in many states g*y couples don't even have the option of marrying,) but I do think they need to have demonstrated long-term commitment and stability. They need to have a plan for the future that is as firm and family-based as a married couple's would be.

I don't think that a piece of paper defines a loving and loyal relationship-- especially in an era where people may have been scared away from marriage by the painful and messy situations they saw their parents in-- and even among those who are married, the divorce rate is high. Marriage is no guarantee of permanence.

But I do think permanence and stability need to be the goal in finding an adoptive home, so an unmarried couple would need to demonstrate the same level of commitment to the child and to each other that a married couple would.

Answer 11

Well, if they aren't married, they do need to be in a long term relationship.

I am technically unmarried and my partner and I adopted 5 kids and now are raising their two baby siblings with the first father.  We would be married if we could, in fact, we had a wedding.  But we live in the "Bible Belt" so no official wedding certificate for us.

Answer 12

As long as the couple has been thoroughly screened, I would say yes.  

Answer 13

Yes; as long as they are obviously in a commited relationship and will provide a stable home.  Prehaps there should be a minimun period of co-habitation or something like that.  

Answer 14

If a couple wants to adopt together, it would be best that they show their desire for family commitment by getting married rather than simply living together.  Whether they remain together or not, of course, cannot be determined.  Plenty of married couples who adopt do divorce.  However, being married shows an intent to remain together that living together does not.  Since stability is an important factor in adopting, I thing that the couple should be married.  This doesn't mean that unmarried couples shouldn't have the same legal right to try to adopt, I simply think it best that they be married.

Answer 15

You are talking about two people (man and woman) who are living together and aren't married, right?  You're not talking about g**s who have had a very long-term relationship or a single woman or man who does not have a partner, correct?

If my assumptions are correct, then my answer is no.  A couple (i.e. a man and a woman) who are simply living together without the commitment of marriage SHOULD NOT be allowed to adopt.  Adoption should always be in the best interest of the child and if two people cannot commit to marrying one another, I don't see how they can commit to raising another human being together.

As for g**s and lesbians who are in long-term, stable relationships whose only reason for not being married is that it's not legal in their state, I say they SHOULD be allowed to adopt if they are seen as fit parents.

As for single men and women who are not shacking up with someone of the opposite s*x without getting married, but instead are living on their own and are proven to be able to provide a stable home environment, I believe they SHOULD be allowed to adopt as well.

Answer 16

Yes.

Answer 17

i think so