Berdollos, that’s brilliant! Now of course, this elegant solution hinges on the discovery of the gay gene – I’m doubfult, but here’s hoping.
Matt_mcl and hamish, I apolgise if I was out of line in defending myself – I see a lot of piling on on these issues, and spend a lot of time defending myself rather than my arguments, which is all I’m here to do.
Ok, accepted.
Would you please clarify what the gay gene has to do with Berdollos’ idea?
Hamish, no apology necessary. As far as I’m concerned I’d like to see the thread cover as much as possible.
And Ace, what does the gene theory have to do with gay people adopting gay runaways? Sounds sensible to me (as long as they tell their biological parents they’re safe).
One of the things I was trying to get at is the agency doesn’t necessarily do a good job interviewing the prospective parents. The do a background check - so if you don’t have a history that is going to show up on a background check - you now only have to be smart about your homestudy. You can hide a falling apart marriage in a homestudy (I know someone who did - not on purpose - but they both wanted the baby and made their relationship out to be much stronger than it was). You can hide excessive beliefs. You can hide recreational chemical use.
So can you hide being gay during an adoption? People do it all the time - usually they adopt as singles and just don’t bring it up or dodge the question or outright lie about it. (But its far better to have two people legally adopt a child - even if they are the same sex - in case something happens to the only legal parent - it also makes it easier for gay couples to take advantage of dependant benefits - i.e. health insurance - for the children of the partnership). But it isn’t unbelievable that if Hamish REALLY wanted to adopt, and adopting as a single wasn’t an option, he could find a helpful lesbian friend, run down to the courthouse, get himself hitched, take HLF to adoption agency, portray themselves as a happy straight couple, adopt, and divorce. It would be a pain in the back end (adoptions take a long time), and it would be immoral, and, from the way Hamish presents himself here, it would not be a ruse he would be willing to take (he doesn’t seem like the type to closet himself) but if he were committed to the idea, it would take an astute social worker to see through the ruse.
You don’t have a right to adopt a child. But you do have a right not to be discriminated against when you try to adopt a child.
Berdollos’ idea hinges on the gay gene for logistcal implementation. Consider: in 2010, we find the gay gene – any available gay children, babies even, are preferably placed with gay parents, and the converse.
Or, we never find a gay gene, and gay parents can’t adopt until the sexual orientation of their children is finalized and their parents reject them – psychological damage already done, now you’re going to allow adoptions of only upset 18 year old runaways? I love the solution, I just think it’s impractical.
This is a common argument – “The policy is flawed in implementation, so let’s flaw the policy.” But it doesn’t hold up. Suppose something does damage the child? In the scenario where the parents resorted to subterfuge, they’re responsible. In the scenario where the policy allows it, the policy is responsible. In between we have the ‘hypocritical society’ grey area – sometimes we, as a society, don’t believe some laws should be fully enforced and perhaps that could be at play here. But I would argue that in the best interest of the child, implementation flaws should be corrected, not appended.
What on gods green earth does this mean? How can I be turned down from adopting a child without being discriminated against? It isn’t possible, adoption agencies, as you’ve noted multiple, multiple times discriminate all the time, and rightfully so!
Social workers entire job is to approve, judge, discriminate, potential adoptees! Again, it’s a question of what is fair adoption discrimination!
Ace, I know exactly what you mean. But, my friend, you are guilty of what I will christen TheRyan’s Fallacy, from the poster here who brought it up:
Specifically, when a word is used in one context, with a connotative “addition” to the denotative meaning clearly implied, it is false practice – IMHO unethical, and poor debating style – to attempt to subvert the intended meaning into a different denotative meaning of the word.
Certainly people discriminate all the time. I seldom if ever read my wife’s romance novels, preferring science fiction. I despise Old Milwaukee beer, and drink it only when effectively compelled to by a social situation.
Social agencies discriminate in this use all the time, and rightfully so. They are not just seeking any person who might express an interest in taking a child, for whatever reason, but the person or people who comes closest to providing the ideal parenting environment for that child.
In that sense, you are completely correct.
However, in the sense of the word “discrimination” in which Dangerosa used it, and particularly in light of the thread’s express topic, the meaning was that of “acting contrary to fairness due to one’s personal opinion of another individual’s distinguishing traits in a context where such traits are not germane to the choice being made.” Under ADA, if I were employing an accountant, the fact that the otherwise best candidate is wheelchair-bound should not affect my decision; contrariwise, if I needed someone to work aloft in a high-rise construction project, it is definitely grounds for discrimination against the wheelchair-bound man.
In short, Dangerosa was saying that the sexual orientation of the individual – in a context in which “sexual orientation” does not include pedophilia as a valid orientation, to bypass that potential pitfall – is not valid grounds for the selection of possible parents.
Just for the record, my wife and I have taken in children of both sexes as wards and in informal situations (the circumstance being older teens who could have declared themselves independent of parental control, but for our insistence that they not do so and instead agree to eventual efforts at reconciliation). We furnished them the best father and mother figures we were capable of being. In the cases I’m familiar with, single mothers generally had male friends or family members furnishing the male role model, and the sole Lesbian couple of our acquaintance has friends among our church community including several men who are male role models for their adoptive daughters. The sole single father I know closely is dating a young woman who was one of our “daughters” through that abovementioned relationship (now a highly successful restaurant manager in her late 20s).
So honestly, I do not see a problem with available male role models. If you were to insist that the role models of both sexes be within the household on an ongoing basis, you might have a point – and it appears that one of your statements implies this. However, I do not see that such a requirement is in any way essential, even if useful, merely that the role model be readily available to the child on an ongoing basis.
Well, the discrimination issue is mostly academic for me, as it would be unconstitutional in my country and would violate the Human Rights Act of my province to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I could adopt here as a single. Last I checked, four provinces had made same-sex couple adoption legal, and with the arrival of domestic partnerships in this province, I doubt it will be far behind, here.
I brought myself up as an example, but for the legal context I was mostly worried about my friends below the border, who have to contend with things like the Defence of Marriage Act, and in some particularly backward states, sodomy laws. America is still far behind the rest of the Western world on these issues, to the point where I worry it will never catch up.
But thanks for your concern, anyway. I do appreciate it.
Umm, a alot of kids know in their early teens they’re gay. I think the suggestion was that teenagers who know they’re gay ought to be placed with prospective gay parents, not that babies-to-be-adopted be tested at birth – an idea I find somewhat disturbing, like a scenario out of cautionary science fiction.
Besides, most gay people are raised by straight parents, and many of us turn out to be decent people. Why is it you believe that it wouldn’t work the other way around?
Polycarp, the idea that it’s against a human right to not be discriminated against is a liberal fallacy. We are all discriminated against on a daily basis, on a date, at the car lot, shopping in a bodega. People make judgements – the ones that are fair and right, are fair discrimination. Further, it’s a common liberal, and unethical tactic, to cry discrimination over any of life’s slights. I would hope here in one of the bastions of knowledge, we’re more likely to see if that data backs the actions, or in otherwords see if the discrimination was fair. I believe I made that distinction clear in the second sentence:
And while I don’t back TheRyan on much, the fact that discrimination should be done away with, and that there’s no such thing as fair discrimination is a flawed meme that’s propagated through the left. I’m fully aware of what the ADA says – I wish more Americans were.
In other words, she’s making an offhand assertation – that ‘sexual orientation’ is an unfair discriminator, this assertation is exactly the issue to which I contend i.e., I’m saying it would be a fair discrimination under the ADA to analyse sexual orientation. This assertation, which Dangerosa makes in response to one of my posts, is exactly what I require proof of. Asserting it again doesn’t advance the deate any. Rather, it strikes me as another emotional appeal.
I’m certainly not in any postion to insist anything – but if that was proposed, that a third party of the apropos gender ‘co-sign’ the adoption, it would certainly address my concerns.
I know the concept of marriage and family has been getting increasingly short shrift over the last decades, but I still think it’s a foundation of society; I’m gladdened by your post.
Back on the subject at hand – do you honestly believe that a gay couple wouldn’t cause accidental/environmental mental anguish to a male child?
Hamish, Wouldn’t you rather have been raised by gay parents, who would be loving and understanding, who knew where you were coming from, what you were going through? If you had that option? Shouldn’t every gay child have that right, to find such parenting before and throughout the formative teen years?
Yes. I mean, no. I mean - ack! Please have a care to how your questions are worded. I mean, I do not believe that a gay couple would cause mental anguish to a child, male, female, or purple, due to their sexual orientation.
Society might cause them mental anguish to a child due to their parents’ sexual orientation, but they might do the same based on their parents’ religion or race, too, and we do not discriminate based on those factors.
I don’t see why you get to require this. The constitutions of my country and yours provide for the equality of their citizens. Shouldn’t we presume equality as a starting position and then make arguments as to why it ought to be abridged?
If I might answer, I’d say those things are not out of the question in a straight family (whatever issues I might have with my dad, he and mom were very good about my coming out). It would be unfair to prevent straight people from raising/adopting a child because they were straight. That would be prejudicial, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
At any rate, it’s pie in the sky. We’re talking about adoption rights now, not pre-birth testing for something that hasn’t even had its genetic code found yet.
Oh no! I once again posted under my roommate’s name. For the record, the above post is by Hamish
Great. Now I’m going to risk Hombrew’s wrath.
Hmph. A moment ago, those parents would cause me “accidental/environmental mental anguish” and now they’re a blessing. Strange.
Well, you’re right. My parents were straight, and they were extremely homophobic. The thing is, I don’t necessarily connect these two facts.
In reality, there are plenty of kind, compassionate straight parents out there, more and more all the time. As for having gay parents, yes, that would seem great – except that it’s not always that simple. A lot of gay people have what we refer to as “internalized homophobia” – that is, they come to buy into the myths and lies that float around about us, and come to hate themselves. They could project that on to a child.
Human psychology is far too complex to say “gay parent + gay child = automatically good,” just as it’s equally false to say “straight child + straight parent = automatically good.”
Precisely. We start with the assumption that you can adopt a child, and move from there. There are good reasons to not approve parents. The two main concerns about gay adoption are:
The child will be teased. We don’t disallow other parents from adopting because the family situation will cause them to be teased. Or families would be thrown out if their last name Fuchs, Jackov, Crappe, etc…(all names of people I’ve known).
The child has a greater chance to turn out gay. Research isn’t supporting this idea, and we don’t disallow adoption because we believe something unproven has a small possibility of occuring. And that something in this case is a condition not everyone even agrees in undesireable. A lot of people believe the hormones in beef cause all sorts of accepted bad health problems - but we allow people who aren’t vegetarians to adopt. Overweight parents have a better chance of raising overweight children - but there isn’t (generally) a weight restriction on adoption.
Now, gay parents would be subject to all the reasons we turn down other families for adoption.
Okay, now I’m TOTALLY confused.
I think there are some technical difficulties going on here. Hamish is out of town at the moment, but as soon as I can, I’ll ask him what’s going on.
The last three dispatches from the Fagtorium are indeed by who they say they are by.
To wit, the post that begins “Yes. I mean, no. I mean, ack!” is by matt_mcl. The post that begins “Oh no!” is by Hamish (for what it’s worth.) And the post that begins “Hmph. A moment ago…” is also by Hamish.
I humbly beg everyone’s pardon for the confusion. (Except Homebrew.)
Our government is currently run by
I’m full blown confused, but I assume it’ll all work out. Homebrew’s another gay quebecois? 
Hey, don’t the Canucks have relevant data, since they already have Gay adoption? How many years of gay adoption statistics do you have – can you post a link?
Hamish, assuming that’s you, congratulations for avoiding that little trap. However, it’s a losing battle. Here’s the final argument, I hope you find it useful.
[ul]
You admit that being raised by homophobes was painful, i.e. something we should strive, as a socitety to avoid.
Just as some heterosexuals are homophobic, some homosexuals are heterophobic – see my first post on misandry.
We should strive to avoid placing kids in possibly opposite sexual orientation phobic environments.
There’s no gay gene – therefore, it’s an implicit risk that you may place young parents with children who will grow up into a mismatch. So #3 is a worry.
Heterosexuals are currently in the majority (96 - 4 was the last McKinsey study I remember reading)
Our government – and our societies adoption discrimination criteria hinges on what’s best for the children.
Under #6, you harm less children by the 4% risk (gays growing up in straight households) then the 96% risk (straights growing up in gay households.)
Conclusion seems pretty straightforward: The government should prefer to place adoptees with straight parents, in order to minimize possible sexual orientation phobias that develop after maturity.
[/ul]
As an aside, I think the teasing argument has been addressed fairly well by Dangerosa. However, we do discriminate sometimes against vegetarians… there was a couple recently in NY that had their child on an a Macrobiotic diet – kid was starving for lack of protien, and the state contemplated taking the child away (I don’t know how it turned out). And that’s for a natural childbirth! Clearly, you can make the case for overweight restrictions, religious restrictions (Christian Scientists, anyone?) Or, we could even address my original question. Should we allow bigots to adopt? I don’t believe this has been addressed, and the applicable role model argument is unsatisfying. I’ll post something on that this weekned, once the real life intrusion is over.
Well, the couple in NY was starving their bio child to near death - not exactly the same thing. (Natural childbirth has to do with labor and delivery, not with who raises the child after it is born. We call these children “biological” children as opposed to “adopted” children). We don’t “discriminate against vegetarians,” we try (and often don’t succeed) in removing children from drastically unhealthy environments. And the point is that we don’t discriminate against Christian Scientists or overweight people adopting. And we DO allow bigots to adopt (you should hear the yells against gay adoption on the listserves I’m on for adoptive parents every time the topic comes up - and I’ve seen white parents of Asian kids make some stunningly bigoted comments about Blacks on the same lists - or non Christians or even about working moms).
Secondly, you haven’t addressed harm. Exactly how harmful is it for a straight child to grow up with gay parents? If teasing is moot, because we don’t discriminate on “will this kid be teased with these parents” during an adoption, what harm do you envision comes to a straight child being raised by gay parents? There seems to be some agreed upon risk that a child who turns out gay could be rejected by his straight parents (whether adopted or not), but its unlikely that gay parents are going to reject their child for being straight - knowing up front that the child is most likely to be straight (this would be like me adopting my Korean born son and being surprised when he isn’t white - some Korean-born adoptive children have US serviceman fathers and look pretty white, but odds are, your kid is going to look Korean). How common are “heterophobic” gays - and how likely are these people to even want to adopt children? (My guess, about as likely as bigots wanting to adopt African American kids).
And its nice that you know there is no gay gene. The molecular biologists can just give up looking for it now.
(Oh, and the “best for children” premise is a little flawed too. Best is pretty subjective, and adoption is a highly complex process. If a birthmother picks a single woman in an open adoption, the social worker can’t second guess her – that’s what open adoption is about, even if the social worker doesn’t feel its “best” – the birthmom does. Children in closed adoptions are often given out “FIFO” - even though it may be far “better” for the child to try and find parents that are a closer match to the child’s birthparents.)
This whole anti-anti-discrimination argument has been sitting very poorly with me, and I decided to drag out a couple of quotes.
I believe that these two quotations say far better than I can what the freedom this country has enjoyed is all about.