[Quote:
Originally Posted by A Monkey With a Gun
Children in this type of family face certain disadvantages; most notably that homosexuality still isn’t completely accepted in our culture (which may cause problems for the child)…
[/QUOTE]
I’ll tell you what may cause problems for a child: the potential for alcoholism, the potential for violence, illiteracy, unemployment, serious illness, poverty, having to compete with other children for attention, being financially spoiled, disappointment, crummy grades, obesity, religious zealotry, living in a flood zone, and urban blight. Geez…do you think I covered everything?
God or Nature has decreed that it takes a man & a woman to create a child. That is a good indication to me that the ideal situation, all other things being equal, is for a child to have a mother & a father.
Thus, while I don’t think gays should be disqualified from adopting (especially in private arrangements with the birth mothers), I do believe that if the choice is between a good straight couple & a good gay couple, the straight couple should get priority.
Should children be taken from gay parents? Hell, no. It’s one thing to prevent one situation. another to interfere with a situation that already exists (same reason I am for contraception, against 95% of abortions). I do think that in a custody dispute in which one parent breaks up the marriage by going gay or coming out- all else being equal, maybe the straight parent should get the edge.
I fully expect flaming, a demand for cites of studies, so forth. I don’t care.
Why is it OK to override nature’s decree with contraception, but not for adoption? Nature has decreed that sex leads to pregnancy; by your logic, shouldn’t that be an indication that the ideal situation is for women to get pregnant after having sex?
If you established that lesbians were more stable than heterosexuals in their relationships, and there were no other supervening factors, sure.
But I am not sure about the “domestic abuse averse” part. This cite alleges that domestic violence among gay and lesbian couples is at least as high as for all (non-adoptive) couples, which they estimate at 25-33%. I have also seen studies that claim that police interventions for domestic violence (IIRC it was in Canada) was higher among lesbian couples than the population at large. I can’t find the cite - take it for what it is worth.
Again, all other things being equal, yes.
No, I would not. I think you should look at all available indicators, both personal and group-based, and make the decision about adoption based on your best guess as to the best interests of the child.
Keeping in mind that there are no guarantees, and very often no good information available, and very often no best-case scenario available. So you do the best you can.
Better, in other words, to be unfair to the prospective parents than to the adopted child.
I guess I don’t understand what you/they mean by steady relationships, either. Under the Myth #3 heading they talk about “open” relationships, and reference the study they used; was that what you meant? I kind of assumed “steady relationship” meant a monogamous (excepting, of course, the “open” statistics from lower on the page) relationship with the same person over the periods of time mentioned.
What are you supporting with that cite?
I assume you’re talking about the male tendency to wander? If that’s the case, then I disagree. I would think the external pressures of family/community/other social structures close to the participants on the health of the relationship is far more important than the “wandering eye”.
First time for me too. I’ve only seen 'em go the other way.
So many resposes, and quite a few that seemed to be trying to put words in my mouth. I’ll start with one of the more reasonable ones
While that may be true, I really don’t think that adoption is where you start with social change. Even a fool must admit that gays still face discrimination and sometimes even outright hatred. All I was saying is that placing a child in a stiuation in which he may be persecuted merely because of who is raising him is not ideal.
Oh come now, Matt, surely you read where I said “at home”; you even quoted it. Not living day to day with a member of the opposite sex may (note that I said may) increase the likelihood of the child developing misogynist or misandric tendencies merely because he or she does not spend enough time with members of one of the sexes. Lack of serious exposure may cause lack of understanding and the child could develop misconceptions. Of course the child will be exposed to the other sex outside the home, but not mearly to the extent that the child would inside. As to the less than intelligent race analogy you put forward, … nah, I’m not even going to address that red herring.
Lamia, of course there are gay children needing to be adopted. But you can’t tell who they are until they hit puberty, now can you? Ostenesibly they would have been adopted before then. That’s all I was saying. As to your second point, refer to my response above to Matt. I’ll also give you that a live in relative could be a mitigating factor.
Kalhoun, you’re lucky this was moved to GD as otherwise I would have some choice words for you. Perhaps you should reread my post. Here’s the relevant part.
I wasn’t ranking sexuality before anything else. I was talking about sexuality and just sexuality. There are far more important factors such as alcoholism, violence, poverty, etc, and I honestly don’t see how you thought I believed otherwise. Unless you were trying to be willfully beligerent.
Let me reiterate to all of you. I am not against gay adoption. All I’m saying is that all things being equal (got that, Kalhoun?) then it is very possible that a straight couple would be a more ideal situation for the child. This is not to say that a gay couple can’t provide a good home, just that that couple is faced with a couple of disadvantages unique to being a gay.
My mother being gay was a problem in 2 ways in my life, neither of which being her fault.
She was closeted until I was about 15, which made her a very sad and lonely woman. She at times took this out on me. Looking back now, I don;t have as much anger towards her as it use to. She must have been under a great deal of stress.
When she finally came out and into a loving relationship (which she has been in for almost 20 years now), she became a much better person, but at this point I was a teenager during a time when gay and AIDS “jokes” where the norm. I was incredibly self-concious about my family being different.
As I see it, my mother’s sexuality had nothing to do with our issues, but the way society viewed her did affect us. Now, we are as close as faily can be. The only worry we have is that close-minded people will have an affect if anyhting happens to my husband and I , since my mother is listed as our daughters guardian in that case. I hope no laws are enacted are other crazy relatives contest this and cause my daughter from being raised by the best grandmother around.
I hope this long and rambling post added something to the mix.
How stunningly evil, hateful and bigotted. Tell me, what about wanting to f-ck someone of the opposite gender, as opposed to the same gender, makes that straight parent inherently more qualified to raise a kid?
Relax, Spectrum, I don’t think friarted’s comment is worthy of that kind of histrionics. If all other things are equal, and one parent is under a societal disadvantage that would make rearing a child slightly harder (be it poverty, employment prospects, geographic location, whatever), then it would be perfectly prudent to give the parent without the disadvantage the “edge”. The question is whether or not our society’s homophobia really does constitute a disadvantage to a gay parent, and that question is not going to be answered by throwing words like “evil” around.
Life-long is basically what I meant. I want to include a lot of stuff like “mutually supportive”, but that would involve a ton of non-objectively measurable criteria.
I don’t know that non-monogamous is as clearly sub-optimal as non-lifelong, except as it correlates with relationship breakup, so it would be harder to discuss that. But FWIW, my ideal relationship for adoptive parents is committed and lasts until death. What I think of as “marriage”.
Best I can do for the moment that gay relationships break up more than heterosexual marriage. I Google’d on “gay relationships length” and some other stuff, and most of what I came across was very far from work-safe and badly off-topic. :eek:
That too would be a very difficult topic to discuss. Too much politicized data.
I suppose if gay marriage is legalized, we can check in twenty years to see if gay marriages break up more than heterosexual ones. My WAG would be that lesbian marriages would be roughly the same as heterosexual ones, but a gay male marriage that lasted into old age (where neither partner died young) would be as rare as such a relationship is now.
I agree. I think that we should look out for the child’s best interests, even if this inconveniences prospective adoptive parents. This is not the time to engage in grand experiments in social re-engineering – especially when the child’s future is at stake.
Bunk. Every time you trust the future of a child to anyone, you’re engaging in a “grand experiment in social re-engineering.” Every child’s future is at stake with every single adoption. Therefore, you judge the qualifications of the prospective parent or parents against the needs of the child to make your conclusion. Nothing else.
Saying otherwise is completely self-serving and doing nothing more than hiding behind the claim “but it’s for the sake of the children!” It’s always for the sake of the children. If the future of the child is what’s important, then you make the choice that’s best for the future of the child. Sexual orientation is irrelevant.
I see this argument a fair amount. I don’t get it. Here’s why I don’t get it:
There are a number of very distinctive genderings that adults can take on, and a number of roles that don’t have strong sex bias. Consider the huge societal conflict between the “stay at home mom” role and the “working mom” role, and which one counts as being a real woman, which one counts as a qualified mother.
If there’s a serious risk to a child developing mental imbalances or debilitating misconceptions by not having an appropriate role model in a particular pattern, it strikes me as just as important that that kid has a SAHM and a corporate go-getter mom in their household, so that they have that immediate-proximity awareness in front of them.
And they should have a busy company man dad and a plays-catch family-fun-time dad. The really cutting-edge families should have a gender-ambiguous parent or someone in a gender role that doesn’t depend on genitalia, too. (“Computer geek techie” can be one of the latter.)
The people who are insisting that it’s important to have one of each set of genitalia in a household aren’t promoting polygamous households as even better. They’re advocating the raising of children in households that are necessarily limited to one possible role for men and one possible role for women, leaving children woefully unprepared for the choices and realities of the modern world. Oh woe, staple back of hand to forehead.
It doesn’t fly for me. Clearly kids are capable of picking up role models outside the spans of their families and developing workable models of the variety of adult behaviour.
Then why are you even participating in Great Debates when what you want to do is spout off unsubstantiated dreck as if it was fact and expect to not be questioned?