So, would you say that the best-qualified homosexual couple should be considered only after the worst qualified heterosexual couple has been eliminated? No matter how qualified that gay couple is to raise a particular kid, no matter how well-suited they are financially and emotionally and in terms of location, family support, and child-raising experience, a poorly-qualified straight couple should take precedence over them?
So, would you say that the best-qualified homosexual couple should be considered only after the worst qualified heterosexual couple has been eliminated? No matter how qualified that gay couple is to raise a particular kid, no matter how well-suited they are financially and emotionally and in terms of location, family support, and child-raising experience, a poorly-qualified straight couple should take precedence over them?
I would imagine, without getting hyper-criticail, that a general benchmark was being proffered.
El Jeffe, I’m aware of the (psychological) differences between the stereotypical man and the stereotypical woman – and those stereotypes are good valid generalizations of common traits.
But one thing you fail to take into account is that typically, the typical gay person seems to have elements or aspects of the opposite sex’s “type” personality mixed in with his/her own, simply by virtue of what he or she has been through in forging his or her own identity and sense of self-worth. I’ve noted that gay men average more understanding and compassionate than straight men, while gay women average more self-reliant and forceful than straight women – again as generalizations, not as straitjackets applicable to all of them. So the child would be exposed to aspects of both “the ideal masculine” and “the ideal feminine” from its gay parents; the sorts of things that are gut-level reactions to growing up as a boy>man or girl>woman that the kid may need can be derived from a relative or friend of the parents’ of the opposite sex, just as they are in “normal” single-parent households.
Mr Visible, a suggestion: though you are well within the bounds of courteous debate, read the comments that disagree with you as being written from the perspective of wanting the best for the child – something I think we can all agree is a desideratum. You may still find important points to disagree with them about, but at least they won’t come across as attacks on gay people, which I’m forming the impression is how you’re perceiving them. (And I hope I’m not presuming too much in making the suggestion; I can sympathize with your sense of needing to defend you and yours, but I’m getting the impression that some people are looking at the issue from a slightly different direction and not making the fact cleark that they’re not judging you, but rather trying to urge the summum bonum for the kid.)
Hey there, MrVisible. Which part of
did you not follow?
To answer your question in a less sarcastic fashion, no, I wouldn’t say that. To reiterate, it is simply one more consideration that should be made.
If I said I like chocolate, and the presence of chocolate is an important factor in my selecting a dessert, would you conclude that I would prefer a heap of dung slathered in chocolate to a scoop of vanilla ice cream? Please, let’s not twist each others’ words.
Jeff
Polycarp, you make a good point. I remain unconvinced on the extent to which gay men possess feminine parenting skills, and vice versa, but it something to keep in mind. For example, a girl will derive much of her understanding of how to interact with men from her father. How much of this ability would a girl derive from a lesbian mother, even a relatively masculine one?
Jeff
I am for gays adopting. Anyone who thinks that having a man and woman be the only combination to be eligible to adopt should see what happened to Mia Farrow and Woody Allen. Look at the mess they made. Gays are no more worse than they are and they have shown to be better than most “stable” marriages. want a cite for that, go google.
In my experience, there are three kinds of adoptions:
-
Open adoptions, where the birthmother chooses the parent or parents. In this case, the state has no business overriding the wishes of the birthmother, unless the parents cannot pass a homestudy. A homosexual man with a history of sexual abuse of children would not pass a homestudy, neither would a hetero man (or woman) with the same history.
-
Waiting child adoptions. In this case the adoptive parents choose the waiting child that will fit into their family. There is an urgent need in most of the country for parents willing to take waiting children, and a home of two gay men in a stable relationship is a better situation for most of these kids than group homes or serial foster care situations. Children who have more than one family interested in adopting them are generally not in waiting child programs.
-
Closed adoptions. In this case everyone who passes a homestudy is put on the list. The babies (this is generally a baby or young child situation) are doled out in order. There is a little room for manuvering, but it isn’t done at the discretion of the agency…its done at the discretion of the adoptive parents and/or the birthmother. For instance, adoptive parents may only be willing to consider taking a white child where the birthmother has no history of alcohol use during the pregnancy and didn’t smoke. These parents will wait a very long time. Or a birthmother may not wish to choose her baby’s parents, but may ask that the baby be placed with a practicing Catholic couple - in which case the next Catholic couple on the list will get the referral. In the case of international adoption (where this is most common nowadays) the country of origin may have restrictions (our son was adopted from Korea - which requires the adoptive parents be married for three years before referral). AFAIK, There is no country that currently places in the US that allows adoption by gays, although some US agencies will place with single people under something akin to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The agency does not prioritize adoptive parents by income, by faith, by marital status or by sexual preference. The agency may (as has been pointed out) refuse to accept applicaitons from certain people (only place in Jewish homes, or not accept applications from homosexual couples) but once the homestudy has been passed, all couples are treated equally by the agency.
Let’s see, Jeffe. A post that includes the quotes: “My feelings on the matter are that gays should be allowed to adopt, but I also think that they should follow heterosexual, married couples in the pecking order.”
And “Nevertheless, I still feel it best that they not be at the top of the list.”
And the apparently contradictory: “It’s simply another factor that I think should be considered, along with financial security, along with relationship status, along with the personalities of the prospective parents.”
And you wonder why I asked the question that I did to try and get a clearer understanding of your position?
As to a later question you asked: “For example, a girl will derive much of her understanding of how to interact with men from her father. How much of this ability would a girl derive from a lesbian mother, even a relatively masculine one?”
Well, she might derive that ability from her interaction with her uncles, her cousins, her family’s friends. One of the elements that a home study examines is the support network that the prospective parents have available to them, to be sure that the child has access to a multitude of caring people.
Children of single parents have a similar lack of gender-based influence, and yet we allow single people to adopt. Single-parent households can turn out exemplary human beings, despite their lack of interaction with one of the sexes on a parental level. Why would having two parents of one sex be worse than having one parent?
Which is the perspective I’m arguing from as well. I just have a hard time understanding how anyone could believe that a life of foster homes and institutions would be better for a child than a stable household, if the child stands a risk of teasing if they’re placed in this household.
How someone could think that this is a ‘greater good’ for the child is completely beyond my comprehension.
Polycarp, regarding your point about “chickenhawks”…
Generally, chickenhawks tend to be in their 30s or 40s, and going for young men in their 20s. When gay men do this, it’s called chickenhawking. When straight 30/40-something men land a 20-something woman, he’s called lucky.
Internet porn (which I don’t generally advocate as entertainment, and do NOT describe here with the attention of writing innappropriate stuff!) offers stories on chickenhawking involving teens, as well as stories of adult men and the teenage (or ‘barely legal’) girl next door, as well as countless stories of daddy/little girl or a boy and his best friend’s mom… lots of ‘kiddie porn’ aimed at all orientations, which does not represent the reality of most people’s sexual experiences.
(And the only reason I know about the more abhorrent types of porn is that I thought about writing porn for money, since it supposedly pays well and requires little talent, but whenever I tried, I just embarrassed myself… just so ya’ll don’t think I’m a freak for knowing about porn!) 
In any case, as I mentioned before, homosexuals are often accused of being more likely to molest kids, but the accusation arises out of a fear of people who are sexually different, and not from any actual likelihood of abuse.
Rider,
If adoption agencies are going to take into account the problems kids will face from having gay parents, then the agencies are perpetuating the very problem they are trying to avoid!
Plus, the agencies would have to also take into account other factors… interracial couples will expose their kids to racism, and couples with less money will expose their kids to classism, and parents of a different race than the kids will also cause certain problems…
A good friend of mine, who is biracial (her mother white, her dad black) faced a very real problem when her dad died. Not only did she have to deal with racism, but her mom had no idea what to do with her hair! Black people’s hair and white people’s hair is different, and my friend’s hair had the texture of black people’s hair, and her mom was totally at a loss. Not until she went to college, did my friend encounter a group of black women who sat her down and really explained what to do with her hair.
Now you ask, why am I going on and on about this tiny little issue my friend had to deal with? Because it was just an issue, it wasn’t family. It wasn’t even in the same league as the significance of having a mom who loved her. An issue can’t compare.
Kids with gay parents will be teased, and will be exposed at an early age to some of the ugliness in the world. Yes, it makes sense to consider that, for maybe a millisecond, because when you compare it to actually having parents, to having a family who loves you, who chose you… it doesn’t weigh in.
Ok, so maybe the hair analogy isn’t entirely apt… but it’s a story I like, so I decided to tell it.
Gay couples can raise their children with every bit of love and understanding as a straight couple.
here is a thread on the subject.
Since it’s not like anyone here has presenting any controlled double-blinded studies, let me just present a bit of anecdotal evidence, namely an Associated Press story by Rex W. Huppke, here reprinted on the web site of the Standard-Times of New Bedford, MA.
In 1998 in Madison County, Indiana, outside Indianapolis, a single gay man, named Craig Peterson, sought to adopt a family of four children, all four of whom suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. (If it matters, Peterson is white; the four siblings are black.) He was able to get custody of the three boys, but then the foster parents of the little girl–a married man and woman, Saundra and Earl Kimmerling, church-going Christians–objected to having their charge be raised by a gay man. The Kimmerlings began campaigning against the proposed adoption, enlisting their elected representatives and writing letters to the editor and publicly saing things like “Girls need mothers so they can learn what it is to be a woman; they need fathers so they know how to interact with the opposite sex” and that homosexual adoption was against “God’s will”. They succeeded in preventing Peterson from gaining custody of the little girl.
So, on the one hand, the little girl wound up with a married couple, a man and a woman (who could teach her about what it’s like to be a woman and how to interact with the opposite sex), and, if that matters to you, a church-going family, rather than with the single gay man. Against this, the four siblings unfortunately remained separated–presumably all would agree that keeping families together is generally desirable–since Peterson was able to get custody of the three boys (who had been in a separate foster home). Both Peterson and the Kimmerlings were able to adopt those of the children who in their custody.
Now, here comes the big twist which would be rejected as ludicrously unrealistic melodrama, not to mention blatant propaganda, if this story had been written as fiction by, say, a gay screenwriter for some TV movie of the week. A couple of years after the Kimmerlings adopted the little girl, Earl Kimmerling–a devout Christian and a married man–pleaded guilty (the confession corroborated by testimony from his adopted daughter and by forensic evidence) to four counts of child molestation relating to his sexual abuse of the 9-year-old girl who the Kimmerlings successfully prevented from being adopted by a gay man. He is currently serving a 40-year sentence.
I have a question. Most of the people argue that there are a lot of children not wanted by heterosexual parents, therefore gay should be allowed to adopt. After all it is better than being raised in an orphanage. I wonder, let’s say that both an heterosexual and a homosexual couple wants to adopt. Should whomever is in charge of the adoption discriminate against the gay couple? Should extra “points” be granted to the heterosexual family? For the sake of the argument let’s say that all the other variables that are taken into account in an adoption are exactly the same between those couples.
I think it’s an important argument, do we consider gays equall to heterosexual in all aspects. If that is so then the adoption agency should treat both exactly the same. I don’t think that would happen in real life. I think that if an heterosexual couple that meet the minimun requisites wants to adopt, the gay couple wouldn’t have a chance. Of course it’s only my opinion.
.
I will now play devil’s advocate:
I would like to stop in the first argument but taken it in a more broad way. According to the standard practice in the SDMB the burden of proof is yours. You can see a clear example of this in the “free market” thread (sorry can’t link it) in there Sam stone was arguing with someone of the virtues of the free-market and he challenged the other to bring proof of the “evil” of the market system claiming that "free-market has been functioning in our society for a long time, thenthe other that wanted to cahnge it had to prove it’s “evilness”.
Those that lobby for gay adoption have to prove beyond resonable doubt that no undesired consequences (of any kind) will come to the child. After all the family as we know it has existed from inmemorable times.
(I would like to finish by saying that I am not against gay adoption… or in favour. I have to make my mind up yet. I hope this thread helps me)
How likely is it for a girl raised by lesbian parents to have no uncles, no grandfathers, no godfathers, no mom’s-best-friend honorary-uncles? I grew up with my hetero still-married parents, and despite the amazing parenting job they did on me, I still managed to pick up information from my grandparents, uncles, aunt, and honorary relatives. How much more would that be true for someone whose two parents might not be role models for a particular sex?
I’d have to agree with the other idea, that having gay parents is no more teasable than having any other kind of parents that look or act differently from the norm. I don’t know any gay parents personally (although I do know the child of a lesbian quite well) but I do know quite a few people whose parents were way different from the norm. Some of them got teased, some of them made it eminently clear that there would be NO teasing about their parents, some just lived with it. I don’t know anyone that got deeply depressed, was harassed out of school, or ran away from home over someone teasing them about their parents. (I do know folks who got some pretty bad harassment at school but hassling them about their parents wasn’t part of it).
And as for leaving kids out of the gay rights idea… do we leave kids out of the racial equality idea? Do white people and black people who get married to each other all refrain from having children because it’s not fair to the kid to make them fight that fight? Some do and some don’t. I’m sure that some gay couples would not want children even if they could get them, because they think it’s not fair to the child-- but I don’t think that’s a decision that we the state should make for them.
Corr
That would be more reasonable if we were arguing to completely replace the current system of adoption with an all-gay adopt-a-thon. But we’re not. We’re trying to supplement the existing system and provide kids with more options than they currently have.
As an exercise, please prove that giving a stuffed animal to a kid will have no undesired consequences (of any kind) to the child. Or that giving a million dollars to a child will have no undesired consequences (of any kind) to the child. Etcetera.
Or prove beyond reasonable doubt that no undesired consequences (of any kind) will come to the child from straight adoption.
As already noted by several people, Mr Visible, the arguments are being founded on the misperception that there are adequate numbers of whitebread straight couples to rescue all those kids from foster homes, orphanages, and such without depending on gay couples – or that gay couples are inherently lacking in some resource the kids need, e.g., proper role-modelship, morally sound family life, etc. You know and I know that that is not the case.
keira, I take your point – but there’s more than a little bit of focus on teens going on. I made the mistake once of Googling on the phrase “gay teens” for cites in support of a position I was taking in one of the interminable debates on homosexuality that seem to spring up here; the only comment I can make on the results is: :o :o :o :o :o
Meet my father and my other father. Wonderfull, don’t kids have enough to worry about these days?
Yeah, stuff like having no family at all. Stuff like being stuck in a nightmare of foster homes and group homes and institutions.
I think that, given the choice between socially awkward moments because of your family, and not having a family at all, most kids would choose to have a family.