Actually this was handled in the 1980s NBC sitcom “My Two Dads.”
I am 100% with ElJeffe on this one. Yes, gay couples should be permitted to adopt children. Yes, straight couples should have priority in adoptions, all other factors being equal.
I find MrVisible’s response to be attacking a straw man where he says,
Since ElJeffe clearly stated that straight couples should have priority, nothing he said could be construed as saying that single people should be considered preferable to gay couples as prospective adoptive parents.
Other factors being equal (I have to keep stressing that), I believe kids are best off being adopted, from most desirable to least desirable) by
-
Straight couples.
-
Gay couples.
-
Single parents of either orientation (I don’t see how orientation should make any difference if there’s only one parent).
Obviously, each of these is far preferable to keeping children in the foster parent mill.
Since there is such a shortage of straight couples looking to adopt, I don’t think giving preference to straight couples is likely to result in any significant hardship to gay couples anyway. There will still be lots and lots of children out there who need you!
Danimal, let me ask you what I asked ElJeffe back on the last page:
No. I thought I made that clear by saying “other factors being equal.” Clearly other factors are not equal if we are considering the worst qualified heterosexual couple and the best qualified homosexual couple.
I would certainly consider the educational background of two competing couples to be much more important than their orientation. I would also place their financial status ahead of their orientation. Probably there are other factors that should go ahead of orientation also; I’m not an expert.
Indeed, I shouldn’t properly say “orientation” at all, since it’s the sex rather than the orientation of the couple that I believe is important. That is, I would be just as reluctant to place a child with two straight women as with two lesbians (indeed, even more reluctant, since the two straight women’s relationship would be less likely to be stable), if an equally qualified straight couple were available.
Thank you, Danimal, for expressing the importance of the sex of the parents over their sexual orientation. I feel the same way. I could care less what the sex life of the parents looks like, provided they’re in a stable relationship, and don’t have frequent orgies, or something. It’s the balance of the man/woman relationship that I feel is important.
Also, to (belatedly) answer someone else’s comment about the prevalence of uncles and grandfathers and such: True, there would almost undoubtedly be some male rolemodels somewhere in the extended family. However, the amount of time the child would spend with those rolemodels would likely be dwarfed by the amount of time the child spends with his parents. IANA child development expert, but I presume that a child would derive more benefit from the constant exposure to a father than from the far less frequent exposure to, say, an uncle.
Jeff
Which is why I brought up the point about single parents. It’s not a strawman, it’s relevant in that millions upon millions of kids are being brought up by single parents, and their parent has only one gender. (For the most part…)
So, how has this screwed up the kids? How much difficulty do they have dealing with people of the opposite gender than their parents? What kind of terrible maladies have they acquired by being brought up by (horrors!) only one gender of human being?
Because that’s what you’re on about, isn’t it? The harm that would come to a kid by being raised by members of only one gender?
That’s how I introduced my dads.
I never worried about it.
MrVisible, the contention isn’t that gay parents will screw up the children. I’m sure that many, if not most, gay parents could do a good job. Similarly, having a single parent is in no way a death knell for the child’s well-being. The question is: All things being equal, can a gay couple provide the exact same quality of child-rearing as a straight couple? And it’s not a question of harm, so much as a question of relative levels of quality. If a child can have a good life being raised by a gay couple, or a great life being raised a straight couple, doesn’t the child deserve the great life? Isn’t the right of the child to have the best possible life he can supercede the desire of the gay couple to have a child?
And since my spider-sense is telling me that you’re going to once again misinterpret what I’m saying, I will repeat: No, not all gay parents are inferior to straight parents. No, being raised by a gay couple will not necessarily screw up the kid. Yes, gay people should have the right to adopt, if their adoption of a child is the best possible outcome that child can be given.
Jeff
You can say that again. 
I thought that was well known. But here you go:
Single parenthood is a huge risk indicator that the children are going to experience poverty. According to Robert I. Lerman’s resarch (see http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenu.../ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=782), sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 8.2% of married-couple households have children living in poverty, as compared to 38.1% living with a lone parent.
But according to a ten-year study bySara McLanahan (see http://www.prospect.org/print/V5/18/mclanahan-s.html), even when one corrects for financial status, single parenthood averages far worse for the children than paired parenthood. Here is an excerpt:
Now, how much of this is due to the single parent being of “only one gender,” as you put it, and how much is due to the fact that she is struggling, often heroically, to do a job all by herself that is quite tough enough for two people? Mostly the latter, I suspect, which is why I consider adoption by any couple, straight or gay, to be far preferable to adoption by a single parent.
But I have also seen reports (which I am not able to locate, at least right now) claiming that the above-quoted ill effects associated with single parenthood affect male children worse than female children. This, it is theorized, is due to the absence of a male role model (since the vast majority of single parent households are single mother households). The only backup I am able to find right now is psychologist Thomas Merrill, Ph.D., from Hawaii’s famous gay-marriage case, Baehr v. Miike: that “it is significant to have opposite sex parents for a child’s learning,” and “we interact with - - and when I say identify, we measure and develop ourself in relationship to our same gender parent.” (The court did not discount his findings, but, correctly, ruled that he had not presented any evidence that gay parents could not do a fine job of raising children).
**
I don’t say that being raised by only one gender does any outright harm to a kid. It just appears that two-gender families have benefits available that same-gender families do not. Both kinds of families can raise happy children without harming them.
ElJeffe,
Can you please come up with a weighted criteria that agencies should use for adoption? “All other things” are never equal. Is a stable home with two men who have been together for years better than a home with two straight parents who have had multiple previous marriages and whose marriage isn’t healthy? Are two healthy gay men better than a home where one straight parent has a severe and life shortening illness? Are two rich gay men better than a straight family with financial problems? Are two childless men better than a family with a dozen children already? Are two lesbians better than two gay men? How about age - are mature parents better (straight or gay). Or are 28 year old parents better than 50 year old parents? Is a SAHM better? Vegetarian parents better than the omnivores? Does it make a difference if neither parent can cook? Or no one is athletic? Or no one is intellectual? Or they go to Church? Are Methodist parents better than the Luthern ones? Conservatives better than Liberals?
The criteria Korea evaluated us on as parents: We had to both be under age 42. We had to make more than (IIRC) $35,000 a year. Neither of us could be significantly overweight, and we both had to be in good health. We had to have been married three years and had to have no more than a single divorce between us. We had to pass a homestudy. Once we met all these criteria, children were distributed “First In, First Out.” There was no “Dangerosa and her husband get the next child because they are more financially stable.” Or “Dangerosa and her husband will not get the next child because they don’t go to church.”
What I’m getting at is the impossibility of evaluating each placement objectively. Either gays can adopt, and they get in the queue and the birthmother books like everyone else, or they can’t. Because if we start discriminating after passing the homestudy, there are far too many subjective criteria - not only for gay parents - but for straight parents as well.
Let me state right up front that I am what most
would call a fundamentalist Christian. Yes, I do
believe that homosexuality is incompatible with
Christian scriptures as well as being contrary
to nature.
That being said, I will now state my opinion as it
relates to homosexual marriages being legally
recognized or any other rights, such as the right to
adopt children. I have no problem with it. If
heterosexual marriages are recognized by the
government then why not homosexual unions?
Why not adoption by homosexuals? Consistency
determines that this must be the case.
Personally, I see no reason for the state to recognize
or not recognize any sort of marriage. We should
all be treated as individuals. Marriages are between
us, our spouse, and God. The state should have
nothing to do with it. As far as adoption goes, why
can’t any combination of qualified people adopt a
child? We should be viewed as individuals by
the government.
Christians have no business trying to enforce
Biblical standards through the state. Christians
are only called to police the Church, not the
country or the world. Of course, I know that is a
whole other can of worms.
Joe Elliott
http://members.aol.com/joe4jesus/index.htm
[whimsical]I think that those people who think that children need one male role model in their immediate family and one female role model in their immediate family aren’t thinking things through far enough.
I mean, in much of current-day culture, there’s a major problem with the proper role of women. Clearly, in order to be a well-adjusted child, that kid needs to have a professional woman mother and a stay-at-home nurturer in the family. I mean, otherwise, they’re not going to be able to figure out how to interact with women and, if female, figure out what social role is preferred.
And how about those male images? Clearly, the child needs a Good Provider, a Company Man, a Fix-It Guy, a Sensitive Father Who Isn’t Afraid To Let His Children See Him Cry, and a Strong And Manly Man. And possibly someone who can handle advanced beer-drinking techniques. How many guys does that family need to cover all the bases?[/whimsical]
Hmm… what about cases like me and my fiance? Technically we are heterosexual. I am biologically female and my fiance is biologically male. However, my fiance is a m2f transsexual and she is far more feminine than I am.
Or, what about families where the woman does all the housework and goes out and earns a living and the male stays at home and takes care of the kids?
Or the families where both mom and dad are professional go-getters and there is no “feminine” role model.
I have yet to see any evidence that homosexual couples are not as good as heterosexual couples. If there were, I think there would be cites.
Joe Elliott, welcome to the SDMB! It’s good to have another thoughtful conservative Christian around here – we have only a few, and they often feel outnumbered.
I’d love to see your comments on the Christian Devotional thread and the discussion that ensued from it, in this forum. Let me know if you’d like a link to the Pizza Parlor, an overtly Christian board that shares some members with this one, where such thinking through the implications of one’s faith is encouraged. (Full disclosure: I’m a liberal Christian, and one of the Mods. there)
That said, one of the key problems with your:
…is that one receives certain privileges and undertakes certain responsibilities that are governed or enforced by the state when one agrees to marry. E.g., my wife has the default right to half my worldly goods on my death, regardless of my will, under the laws of the state we live in. She is entitled to consent to medical treatment or its withholding if I am incapacitated. I am, within limits, responsible for her support, even in the unlikely event that we separate. And we cannot be prosecuted for the crime of fornication, which remains on the law books in this state, though not enforced, since we are permitted and expected to engage in carnal knowledge, as unmarried persons are not.
What I find odd about this whole thread is the “who’s first in line” and “all other factors being equal” argument (as it relates to public adoptions of ‘waiting’ children).
For instance, here’s the link MEBuckner posted on page 2. article
So here you have a gay guy who wants to adopt four siblings who are currently placed in different foster homes. The foster parents of one of the siblings find out he’s gay, so they get a bunch of people whipped into a religious frenzy about how a gay man being allowed to adopt is so very wrong, and decide to adopt this child themselves rather than let him have her. (I’m paraprasing in my own ticked off way, if you want less bias, read the linked article.) Shortly thereafter, the ‘religious’ heterosexual adoptive father pleads guilty in court to molesting the girl he fought so hard to keep out of the immoral clutches of the gay guy.
But, but, but, all other factors were equal, right? So the heterosexual couple were really the best choice for this child, right?
The thing is, all other factors weren’t equal. The gay man wanted to adopt ALL the siblings. He wanted to keep the family together and was willing to take all four of them to make it so. The foster parents weren’t even going to adopt this child until they found out that the man who was going to adopt her was gay. THEN they decided to adopt her.
This brings us to my point. There aren’t a lot of gay couples out there fighting with hetero couples over the same child(ren). If they are fighting over the same child, all other factors are rarely going to be equal. Most of the time, its not even going to be an issue, because it will be either this adoptive parent, or no adoptive parent.
Actually, there are a lot of gay couples interested in adopting the types of children that there aren’t enough of - those healthy babies (and those healthy white babies - even more in demand). Those ARE the majority of “stranger” adoptions in the US. (I believe that the majority of adoptions are family adoptions - grandma taking parental rights, or a stepfather adopting his wife’s children from a previous relationship).
If gays are allowed to adopt (and they should be), they should be just as good parents for those babies as they are for nine year old boys who have been sexually abused, have learning disabilities because their birthmom used drugs while pregnant, and have a history of displacement.
Once again, I’ll recommend (as I do every time this subject comes up) interested parties read Dan Savage’s book “The Kid: What Happened When My Boyfriend and I Decided to Get Pregnant.” With the warning that Dan is a gay sex advice columnist and doesn’t pull punches with his sex life.
In most cases where families are trying to adopt, they are looking for the healthy stranger infant. In those cases, the families are evaluated on their ability to provide a loving home, then put on a seven year waiting list. (My own perception on the way the system works, may be mistaken). If an agency were to grant extra points, for any reason, it would become a red tape nightmare (take a list of hundreds to thousands of couples standing in line… now give extra weight to some of them, to move them up just a little bit). Every time someone gets an extra point, that means they can cut ahead in line… how many families?
If, however, there are two families trying to be able to adopt an individual child (non-infant), well, that’s just fabulous. I wish that were a common problem-- how much better would it be to be wanted by two families, than not wanted at all? Of course, it’s still a problem, and the best family for the child would have to be determined. I don’t believe sexual orientation should be a factor at all… I’m not sure about money-- clearly, it could be a benefit, but class is such a tricky issue. Criminality should be a factor, imho, especially since I remember a divorce custody battle (Sharon Bottoms) in which the judge gave custody to the straight father (and convicted murderer) rather than the lesbian mother, the opinion being mainly based on sexual orientation.
So, standard practice is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? That’s kind of crazy, since that’s the most difficult kind of burden of proof… as opposed to “clear and convincing evidence” or “preponderance of evidence”… generally reserved only for the state’s burden in the prosecution of criminals…
warning-- I’m a first year law student, which means I know only enough of legal theory to be dangerous, not enough to be an expert on anything beyond Guinness
So, the antiquity of a practice creates a presumption of correctness, which can only be rebutted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt? It’s a good thing we’re not arguing about slavery, or stoning rape victims, or executing debtors.
Finally-
I don’t think any state agency would allow a child to remain with a wolf pack, at least not for long, since the child would continually be bringing lice/fleas into school. Even in states with abysmal DFACS offices, bug infestations will usually get a home visit for investigation of neglect. 
Besides, which family as we know it? “One man, one woman, offspring, no other relatives” is not only a fairly recent historical development, but hardly anyone pulls it off anyway (even in the cultures that think it’s a good idea).
Huge numbers of different family structures have existed since time immemorial. A number of the earliest family structures had men as primary providers for their sisters’ children, for example. Others involved polygyny or polyandry (polygyny is more common). Certain forms of clan and tribal structures provided children with a large pool of adults who were responsible for their upbringing. I believe it has not been uncommon for children to be raised by grandparents in certain systems, because the parents are more able-bodied and therefore required to do the work of hunting and the like. Some cultures have support for people of one sex to “take the role” of the other, which role includes the ability to marry people of the same sex and even raise children together as a couple.
To continue this mild hijack…
Polycarp:
An even better argument for the existence of state-sanctioned (and encouraged) marriage is, quite simply, marriage is good for society. The idea of a strong family unit that sticks together through thick and thin is much better than a bunch of people who just come and go as they please, producing kids here and there, dragging them along when they leave, and such. People who are married are more likely to stay together than people who aren’t, especially when they have the encouragement of society as a whole. It’s better for the couple, and it’s especially better for the children.
Jeff