Should gay couples be allowed to adopt?

[Dre89]

This is an issue that's come up recently in Australia, and it interests me so I thought I'd bring it up here. Now for those of who you know my stance on the morality of homosexuality (and before the new guys accuse me, no I do not hate gay people, I do not want to burn them at the stake or whatever your misconception is about all anti-homosexuals because you live near some fundamental baptists) actually hear out what I have to say before you critcise me again.

The question is traditionally proposed as "should gays have the right to adopt?" But I think the question is worded badly. I think the question wrongly makes the subject of the questions homosexuals, when it really should be the child. I think this affects the debate about it as well. Hearing religious views on the issue, it appears that the theist is more focused on punishing the gay person rather than considering what's best for the child. Hearing arguments for homosexuals, it seems that they are more focused on enpowering homosexuals, and claiming that they deserve liberty, than actually arguing why it's in the best interest for the child. It appears that both parties have sought to glorify their respective school of thought instead of consider the child first.

I think these arguments miss the point. The question should be worded as "is a child's best interest comprimised if it is adopted by a gay couple?". Now when we look at it from the viewpoint of the child, as far as I know, there hasn't really been any evidence to suggest that gay parents are any worse than straight parents.

We also have to remember that no one, straight or gay, has the right to adopt a child. It's a privellage bestowed upon the fortunate couple, it's not something one is entitled to. In that sense, if the gay is not given a baby, they odn't really have a right to complain, because then doing so suggests empowerment of homosexuality is the priority. It would be the same for straight people if hypothetically there was a community where all the adoptors were gay, and the straight couple argued they had a right to adopt.

Now my question is, if the choice is between a good straigh tcouple, and a good gay couple, what is there to gain by chosing the gay couple? We know historically that straight couples can raise their children well. Supposedly, gays can do that too, but there might also be the social issue of having gay parents, which could cause issues at school etc. Now I'm not saying that will necessarily happen, but to me you don't need to take that risk when you have a perfectly good straight couple to give the child to.

Now I'm not saying gays shouldn't have the right to adopt, I'm saying when ocmpetitng with good straight couples, I don't think it's logical to assume it will be in the best inerest of the child to give it to the gays. Doing so, when there are perfectly good straight couples, is more about enpowering gays. If however, there are no good straight candidates, and it is believed that the child will be better off under gay parenting than in an orphanage, then I think that should be permitted, for it is in the best interest of the child.

Remember, this isn't a homosexuality debate, it's not about whether homosexuality should be permissable or not. If you think gays should adopt simply because there's nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, then you're just attempting to enpower homosexuality, and are commiting the same fallacy as the theist who is simply trying to punish homosexuality. I think you need to show why it is in the best interest of a child to be adopted by a gay couple.

I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. I hope I don't attacked too badly this time.

 

[ballin4life]

Well, my gut instinct is that having heterosexual parents is an advantage over having homosexual parents. This is mainly due to society's general opinion of homosexuals.

However, I have known of people that had homosexual parents and seem to be "turning out fine". It's probably better than being raised by a single parent. Worse comes to worst, I don't see how it is much different from having a single parent who happens to have a roommate, or a family member living in, or etc.

If you want to presume some kind of crazy worst case scenarios involving homosexual parents, you have to take into account that there are plenty of horrible heterosexual parents as well.

I don't really have a strong opinion on this though. I think it should be up to whoever is giving the child up for adoption.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Hmm, this is a tricky topic.

I feel your topic title does not match the points you are trying to make in the OP. You make it very clear in your description that you want to debate whether it could be in the best interest of the child to be adopted by gay parents when given a choice between a heterosexual and homosexual family. Yet your title states "should gay couples be allowed to adopt?"

My simple answer to this would be yes. They should be allowed to adopt, not because of their inherent right, but because they possess just as much justification and reasoning for adopting a child as a heterosexual family.

As you state, adoption is not a right, its a privilege. IMO, a homosexual family should be given the same privileges as a heterosexual one.

However as you state:

If you think gays should adopt simply because there's nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, then you're just attempting to enpower homosexuality, and are commiting the same fallacy as the theist who is simply trying to punish homosexuality. I think you need to show why it is in the best interest of a child to be adopted by a gay couple.

which renders my above argument out of bounds.

Though I understand the true intentions of your question, I would rename the title to something less ambiguous and more related to the topic at hand, the child.

Now to my Argument -

As I first began to ponder my stance on the issue, my immediate reaction was that a straight couple would be able to raise a child in a better environment than a gay one. I attribute this to the general lens that society views homosexuals with.

I don't have a very solid argument as to what advantages a child would have if adopted by a homosexual family, but, to play the devils advocate, I will attempt to make a case as to why these children would not be disadvantaged if adopted by a gay couple.

My Argument - More Info Here and Here

According to the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) -

• As long as a couple is providing a loving, caring environment for their child, the parent's sexual orientation does not make a difference in the development of the child.

• Children with gay parents usually tend to be more "affectionate, responsive, and protective" and less "bossy, negative, and domineering" than kids of straight parents.

• Because most children with gay parents have experienced the divorce of their biological parents, their subsequent psychological development has to be interpreted in context. --> When comparing divorced lesbian mothers to divorced heterosexual mothers, the lesbian mothers have shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than the straight woman.

• Being adopted by a well-off gay couple is almost always the better alternative than staying in an orphanage or being adopted to a single parent.

• Denying legal parent status for these gay co-parents prevents these children from enjoying the psychological and legal security that comes from having two willing, capable, and loving parents.

• Hypothetically, if custody is given to a gay family, the children they adopt have the same recognized legal security of those adopted by a straight couple which guarantees the children a feeling of legal security as well as financial benefits such as "dependent health insurance."

For a quick contra-positive, there are many claims that suggest that children with gay parents experience that same pitfalls at children with divorced parents. If this is the case, when considering which option should have more legitimate legal recognition, a heterosexual divorcee's new husband should not have more parental right than a lesbian lover's new partner. <-- Yet this is not the case.

Phew. That was a long post and took a lot of effort/research out of me. I do not disagree with your assessment either Dre. and, even if I did, I would never judge you based on your beliefs.

I would like to close with one final argument.

In was proven in South Park (Season 9, Episode 8) that two men (Kyle and Stan) could successfully protect and safeguard a child, in the form of an egg, from a professional assassin for an entire week. If that does not prove something, I don't know what will.

-kuz

 

[Dre89]

The wording of the question is very important.

The question is traditionally presented as "should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?". In this format, most people will automatically say yes, because the subject is the homosexual. Saying no seems to be a direct attack on the homosexual.

Formatting the question the way I did changes that. We see that one can say that in most cases the homosexual shouldn not adopt, but it's not ebcause they'er inferior, it's not a direct attack on them. It also removes religion from the issue.

Just curious, can you back those arguments up with statistics, or were they made up?

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that gay couples would be lesser parents in terms of their parenting skill. I'm arguing that the child may encounter social difficulty simply because his/her parents are gay, which has nothing to do with the couple's actual parenting ability.

Your arguments alsmot seem to be implying that homosexual couples would make better parents than heterosexual ones. That would mean that the natural method of parenting (heterosexual) would be flawed. It's kind of absurd to argue that although we are structured to reproduce through both male and female, we're structured to nurture through male-male or female-female.

 

[th3kuzinator]

The wording of the question is very important.

The question is traditionally presented as "should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?". In this format, most people will automatically say yes, because the subject is the homosexual. Saying no seems to be a direct attack on the homosexual.

Formatting the question the way I did changes that. We see that one can say that in most cases the homosexual shouldn not adopt, but it's not ebcause they'er inferior, it's not a direct attack on them. It also removes religion from the issue.

Just curious, can you back those arguments up with statistics, or were they made up?

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that gay couples would be lesser parents in terms of their parenting skill. I'm arguing that the child may encounter social difficulty simply because his/her parents are gay, which has nothing to do with the couple's actual parenting ability.

Your arguments alsmot seem to be implying that homosexual couples would make better parents than heterosexual ones. That would mean that the natural method of parenting (heterosexual) would be flawed. It's kind of absurd to argue that although we are structured to reproduce through both male and female, we're structured to nurture through male-male or female-female.

Every bullet point statement was made from paraphrasing the articles above them. They seemed to be reputable sources taking quotes from a reputable organization.

I am not trying to argue that homosexual parents would make better parents overall. I listed a few instances where this may be the case which supported my argument. From that same article, there are many counters to the points I have listed above. Most of these describe why homosexual parenting might afflict the child socially. The main one being that children with homosexual parents are often teased or bullied in social situations or are pressured to feel a certain way towards their homosexual parents, usually something akin to embarrassment.

As I stated with my post, I do not have a particularly strong opinion as to where I fall on the spectrum, so I wanted to test my debate skills and argue a position contrary to the one you stated in the OP

I don't have a very solid argument as to what advantages a child would have if adopted by a homosexual family, but, to play the devils advocate, I will attempt to make a case as to why these children would not be disadvantaged if adopted by a gay couple.

My goal was to argue this point.

 

[ballin4life]

What is the current policy? Can single mothers or fathers adopt children?

 

[1048576]

Your argument against gay adoption also holds true for Muslims and fat people. Just pointing that out.

I'm also pretty sure the younger generation doesn't care if your parents are gay, and certainly at ages young enough to matter the kids aren't going to have such strong convictions. Of course I'm too lazy to look anything up.

Doesn't it seem wrong to you to exclude someone from a group on the basis that they've been excluded from that group? It's like the unit cohesion argument of DADT, the logic of which could also be used to keep blacks out of the military.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Edit:
This is simply a statement of my views on the issues, not a serious attempt to convince other people. For reasons stated a few posts below, I'm not equipped to really debate this in-thread.

Would you allow a pair of hardened criminals to adopt? Of course not, because they'd force their moral perversions on the child. I think you can tell where my logic leads from here.

 

[1048576]

Would you allow a pair of hardened criminals to adopt? Of course not, because they'd force their moral perversions on the child. I think you can tell where my logic leads from here.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the opponent. Every time someone accuses me from strawmanning on this issue from here on out, I'm going to reference this post. Thanks, Nick. You've made me very happy today.

Dre, I think you should try to refute Nick's argument, lest I, and the rest of the pro-gay posters here, assume you support it, which I don't think you do currently.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Would you allow a pair of hardened criminals to adopt? Of course not, because they'd force their moral perversions on the child. I think you can tell where my logic leads from here.

So you're implying that letting a homosexual couple adopt a child is not permissible because they would force their perversions upon the child.

...erm. Besides the blatant informal fallacy with which you base your argument on, I heavily disagree with both points being made.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I should probably explain my position.

My reason for condemning homosexuality is simply because the Bible condemns it.

Of course, I can't use that as an argument without first proving the Bible is the Word of God... which would be a massive hijack.

Therefore, I can't really debate it in this thread. My previous post was more of a statement of my stance on the topic than an attempt to convince anyone else.

@numbers
Just wanted to point out, you're committing the fallacy of proof by example.

@th3k
I exaggerated the point a bit (okay, a good deal). The fact is, most upbringings portray homosexuality in a very bad light. However, in this case, the "parents" would be EXTREMELY unlikely to do so, therefore altering the moral compass of the child.

 

[Ballistics]

"In 2004, 70 percent of the 73.2 million children under age 18 lived with two parents, 26 percent lived with one parent, and the remaining 4 percent lived with no parent. For that 4%, that EQUALS 2.9 MILLION homeless children." WikiAnswers

I don't think they really care who their parental guardians choose to have sex with. because they are too busy loving having a home and some food.

http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/

 

[th3kuzinator]

I should probably explain my position.

My reason for condemning homosexuality is simply because the Bible condemns it.

Of course, I can't use that as an argument without first proving the Bible is the Word of God... which would be a massive hijack.

Alright, I understand your position on the topic and the reasons for not going in-depth more in this thread, but in your first post you used logic to formulate a straw-man argument for explaining why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. Now you are using simply using religion to to dismiss homosexuality and make your accusations justifiable. Two contrasting POVs do not usually help your argument.

Regardless, using the bible to condemn homosexuality is against what Dre. wanted in this thread, so I will stop there.

Therefore, I can't really debate it in this thread. My previous post was more of a statement of my stance on the topic than an attempt to convince anyone else.

That was a pretty bold statement for someone who just wanted to clarify his stance on an issue, just saying.

@th3k
I exaggerated the point a bit (okay, a good deal). The fact is, most upbringings portray homosexuality in a very bad light. However, in this case, the "parents" would be EXTREMELY unlikely to do so, therefore altering the moral compass of the child.

Though I wish it were not the case, this is pretty much spot on in terms of why children are distressed by having homosexual parents. As most upbringings furtively, if not overtly, discourage homosexuality, these children grow up with a somewhat negative view of this sexual orientation. However, as you've stated, a homosexual couple would most likely raise the child with a positive view of homosexuality.

Although I do not think it should, this alteration of said moral compass will probably alienate the child socially from his peers. Although this is not the fault of the homosexual couple, but rather of the ignorant stigmas of society, it damages the child nonetheless and is thus a valid point when considering the disadvantages facing children with homosexual parents.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Would you allow a pair of hardened criminals to adopt? Of course not, because they'd force their moral perversions on the child. I think you can tell where my logic leads from here.

Comparing homosexuals to hardened criminals? That's not very nice.

Anyway, guys it looks like we've got a pretty neat thread here going. I'd just like to touch upon the fact that there is nothing wrong with having more people that are able and allowed to take care of children.

And another thing, if a single parent can raise kids, I don't see why two shouldn't be able to.

 

[El Nino]

Random fact:

In ant colonies, the queen is the only main reproductive member (males tend to be short lived). The workers are sterile females who can't procreate. It is these workers who take care of the young ants. The workers' sterility is what makes this system work from an evolutionary standpoint. If the workers were capable of having their own children, there would be competition within the colony, with each parent favoring her own children above all others. But because the workers can't have their own children, they are capable of putting forth their all of their efforts into the raising of the queen's children.

 

[Dre89]

Male lions, when they take over a new pride, will kill the cubs of the previous male, so that the females go in heat?

Are you suggesting we adopt this practice too?

Numbers- The analogy to Muslims/fat people/balcks etc. doesn't work. I would only have an issue with giving a baby to one of those couples if they were either a bad couple, or if the child would be subject to social scrutiny.

The first condition is obvious. The second condition is not as obivous, but logical. If you have the option to give the baby to a good straight, white couple, or to a black family in a location where there is intolerance to black people, and the child will likely have to endure social issues, why would you chose the black family? How is that better for the child?

If you were to choose the black family, you would be doing it simply because they're black. Congratulations, you have jeopardised a child's best chance at life to make a political statement.

The point is, in the instance where one has the choice between a good heterosexual couple, and a good homosexual couple, there is simply nothing at all to gain by giving it the homosexual couple over the heterosexual couple. At best, a homosexual couple would raise a child as good as a heterosexual couple (which I'm not saying is impossible if there are no social issues). However the child runs the risk of social scrutiny, so why take that risk, when there is abolsutely nothing positive to gain from giving it to a homosexual couple over a heterosexual one?

 

[_Keno_]

The point is, in the instance where one has the choice between a good heterosexual couple, and a good homosexual couple, there is simply nothing at all to gain by giving it the homosexual couple over the heterosexual couple. At best, a homosexual couple would raise a child as good as a heterosexual couple (which I'm not saying is impossible if there are no social issues). However the child runs the risk of social scrutiny, so why take that risk, when there is absolutely nothing positive to gain from giving it to a homosexual couple over a heterosexual one?

So pretty much the only reason it shouldn't be allowed, both for a black family to adopt a white child and for a homosexual couple to adopt a child, is that society would make it hard on them?

That doesnt seem like a very good reason for disallowing either, it rather seems that society is the problem. Maybe if those situations were to become commonplace enough, neither would have such issues. This is no different than what happened when mixed schools first came about, and it ended up working out. Sure, African Americans were teased and beaten up etc in mixed schools at first, but now it is so commonplace that nobody gives a second thought. (and i suspect the amount of bullying, teasing, etc before those adoptions become commonplace would be far less than what happened with mixed schools).

 

[1048576]

Male lions, when they take over a new pride, will kill the cubs of the previous male, so that the females go in heat?

Are you suggesting we adopt this practice too?

Numbers- The analogy to Muslims/fat people/balcks etc. doesn't work. I would only have an issue with giving a baby to one of those couples if they were either a bad couple, or if the child would be subject to social scrutiny.

The first condition is obvious. The second condition is not as obivous, but logical. If you have the option to give the baby to a good straight, white couple, or to a black family in a location where there is intolerance to black people, and the child will likely have to endure social issues, why would you chose the black family? How is that better for the child?

If you were to choose the black family, you would be doing it simply because they're black. Congratulations, you have jeopardised a child's best chance at life to make a political statement.

The point is, in the instance where one has the choice between a good heterosexual couple, and a good homosexual couple, there is simply nothing at all to gain by giving it the homosexual couple over the heterosexual couple. At best, a homosexual couple would raise a child as good as a heterosexual couple (which I'm not saying is impossible if there are no social issues). However the child runs the risk of social scrutiny, so why take that risk, when there is abolsutely nothing positive to gain from giving it to a homosexual couple over a heterosexual one?

I'm thinking long term. If you let black people care for children now, then society will learn that there's nothing to stigmatize black parents, so future children will have the best lives possible.

Also, I'm pretty sure having the skill set to cope with teasing is better than never being teased as a child, because at some point something you do will be abnormal, although reasonable, and you will be scrutinized and ostracized for it.

Also note that my position is that the child should go to the best parents, gay or straight, based on how they, not society, would raise the child. I'm not saying a good straight couple should be denied a child because a horrible gay couple wants it.

Also, lets be real here. There exists at least one gay couple, who, despite the kid's peers wanting him to burn at the stake, would lead the child to a happier, healthier life than the 1,000,001th best straight couple. That's what all the credible research suggests. Thus, an outright ban on gay adoption makes no sense. The most you should be arguing for is higher standards to be required of gay households, which I disagree with.

 

[El Nino]

Male lions, when they take over a new pride, will kill the cubs of the previous male, so that the females go in heat?

Are you suggesting we adopt this practice too?

*the sound of the point going way the **** over your head*

You do realize that the same rules that govern the evolution of animal behavior also govern human behavior. Even ethics (especially ethics).

If you want to debate me on this, start a thread in the DH. Since we're both Debaters, I don't think we can go at it in the PG.

Edit: Aw, **** it.

If you have the option to give the baby to a good straight, white couple, or to a black family in a location where there is intolerance to black people, and the child will likely have to endure social issues, why would you chose the black family? How is that better for the child?

If you were to choose the black family, you would be doing it simply because they're black. Congratulations, you have jeopardised a child's best chance at life to make a political statement.

The point is, in the instance where one has the choice between a good heterosexual couple, and a good homosexual couple, there is simply nothing at all to gain by giving it the homosexual couple over the heterosexual couple. At best, a homosexual couple would raise a child as good as a heterosexual couple (which I'm not saying is impossible if there are no social issues). However the child runs the risk of social scrutiny, so why take that risk, when there is abolsutely nothing positive to gain from giving it to a homosexual couple over a heterosexual one?

There is one flaw with this line of reasoning. None of these objections of yours can be quantified. Therefore, it would be almost impossible to implement them into policy without making sweeping assumptions. What I mean by that is that throwing on a blanket statement like "social scrutiny" or "social issues" is too overtly subjective. A person's income and things of that nature can be quantified. I know of no applicable method to properly weigh the effects of "social scrutiny." And I have to point out that "social scrutiny" is something that applies to everyone. What if that perfect straight white couple decides to move to an area that is intolerant to whites? Or what if they want to travel to another country where they are the minority? Are you suggesting that people should stay in one area all their lives? What if social cirumstances change over the next decade? What if non-whites move into the neighborhood where this family lives and they become the minority? Can you predict the changes that will occur to a society's ethinic makeup and cultural outlook over the course of 18 years?

 

[Dre89]

Well if we were in a region in let's say South Africa, which is racist towards white people, and endorses homosexuality, then I would give the child to a gay black couple instead of the white couple, because I'm not going to jeopardise the child's best chance at life.

Saying that there are no statistics to suggest that the baby may be subject to social issues is missing the point. I'm not saying that the child will definitely endure these issues, I'm saying there is absoultely no logic in taking that chance, because there is nothing to gain from a homosexual couple over a heterosexual couple that outweighs that risk. We can use common sense to conclude that if a child has a gay parents in a region where people get bashed simply for being gay, it's likely the child will come across problems. In that scenario, giving the child to the gay couple over the hereosexual couple is in the interest of that couple, not the baby. It's a victory for homosexuality, not the child.

Numbers, saying that it's better to let them get teased to build immunity is missing the point. I've heard of places in America where people get bashed simply for being gay, are you saying we should subject children to that treatment when we have the option of giving them better?

As for the argument that if we let these couples have children, perhaps it will become accepted, there are two issues-

1. Even if gay couples prove to be equally capable parents (I'm not saying that they can't be, if there are no social issues hurting the child), there will always be discrimination because conservatives will argue that gays shouldn't have the right to adopt because they think homosexuality is wrong. They're not likely to change their mind on that.
2. I'm not willing to use children as guinea-pigs to "test the water" so to speak. They're not expendable objects.

 

[ballin4life]

Ok, so let's rewind to the 1960s and say that interracial marriages are frowned upon by society.

Would you decree that interracial couples cannot adopt children?

And why even stop at adopting? Any interracial child is going to have a lot of hardship. In fact, this will be even worse than the adopted child, as not only will he have the stigma of parents that are in an interracial marriage, but he will be of mixed race himself, and is likely to be a social outcast in the eyes of both races.

So why should interracial couples even be allowed to have children?

 

[El Nino]

Well if we were in a region in let's say South Africa, which is racist towards white people, and endorses homosexuality, then I would give the child to a gay black couple instead of the white couple, because I'm not going to jeopardise the child's best chance at life.

My main problem with the arguments that you have provided, Dre., is that they attempt to address environmental problems at the individual level. If you want to say that one particular environment is unhealthy to children, that's fine, but individual people have the ability to relocate. (As a side note, I know you were probably just throwing together a random example, but South African society is more complicated than that, based on my readings.)

Would you give a child to a family in which one parent is a police officer or a firefighter? Considering the dangerous nature of that parent's work, there's a significantly higher chance of that parent being injured or killed, which could cause emotional distress to the child.

Would you give a child to a family in which there is a family history of cancer? Isn't there, in that situation, a higher chance that one of the family members could succumb to the disease, which would also be emotionally distressing to the child?

Would you give a child to a family living in the midwestern United States, in an area that often experiences tornadoes? Or do you give that child to a family in California, an area that experiences earthquakes? Which natural disaster is better?

Tell me, can you protect a child from witnessing death and disease, which is itself a natural part of life? If you can tell me that, then perhaps you can tell me how you can protect a child from social scrutiny, from bullying, from being teased for being different. Because that is also one of the unavoidable hazards of life. There is no person you could give a child to who is completely free from experiencing prejudice or social scrutiny. A straight white couple will also be judged by others within their community, and they will be judged by others outside of their community. They also will most likely not spend their entire lives in one place. If they step foot outside of their neighborhood, they may become the minority, and someone will judge them. And, yes, someone will judge them specifically for being white, and sometimes for being straight even.

Prejudice is like death, disease and taxes. It is unavoidable in any life that involves living among other people. But unlike death and certain diseases, it is something that can be overcome. If a gay couple is having trouble in their area, they can move to a safer, more tolerant neighborhood to raise their kids. This is also true for interracial couples and for minorities and for people living in high crime areas. If a situation ever escalates into violence, most people would move, regardless of the motivation behind the violence, whether it is racially motivated or a crime of opportunity. Even if the situation is violent, then there is a capacity within all people to endure. If that were not the case, no minority communities would have survived this long living in areas where they are not the norm. If this were not the case, the LGBT movement would have been crushed a long time ago.

Minority children and children of interracial couples were never given the option of having different parents. We were never given the option of not having been born, or of living in some perfect ideal world in which prejudice does not exist. For a lot of us, our parents did what they could to provide for us. In severe cases, some of us may have wished that we were born with different skin color, that our parents spoke better English (or whatever the main language is where we live), or that we looked like everyone else.

But these stresses are things that you learn to overcome. Because no matter how much it seems that the world is against what you are, you will eventually learn that the only people in this world who are truly in your corner are the ones you go home to. Kids who come from troubled homes may have difficulty adjusting to society. But kids who have stable homes, even in the face of an intolerant society, don't emerge from that as abused victims. No matter how well you think you can structure a perfect world in which to raise a child, ultimately that child will have to learn how to survive in a world that is adverse to human happiness. Because nowhere in the world will you find a place that is not adverse to human happiness.

 

[Dre89]

The difference with interracial conceived children and interracial parents adopting is that is that with adoption there are better options out there.

"Conventional" parenting in discriminatory areas will always happen. You need children everywhere. But do you think parents want the kisd to suffer that way? No, they don't. This is why we try to put the adopted kids in the non-discriminatory areas, we're giving these kids what those interracial couples couldn't give theirs.

With the gays re-locating, there'd be no point when you can give it to a good straight couple who own't ened to re-locate. Again, giivng it to the gay in that case would be a political statement, because you wouldn't give it to the straight couple if they were the ones who had to re-locate instead.

As for saying there's benefits from discrimination, there are consequences to that argument. You would only logically subject the child to that environment if you thought it was better to be in that environment. But then you should be placing all children in those environments, which would be absurd.

See, I don't think you actually think discrimination is actually better for the child (I could be wrong though, correct me if I am), you're just trying to justify it. But if you concede it's not acually better, then you lose the point, because again, there's no logic in sending kids there when we can place them in better areas.

 

[Ballistics]

This debate is silly, with around 2.9 million homeless children we need all the help parental guardians can give, if you have a job, can provide food shelter and help, you should be allowed to adopt. You guys are just debating for debate sake at this point.

 

[1048576]

I've got a better idea. How about we just not let fundies near children. I mean, that's prolly a good idea even without the context of discrimination.

 

[ballin4life]

The difference with interracial conceived children and interracial parents adopting is that is that with adoption there are better options out there.

"Conventional" parenting in discriminatory areas will always happen. You need children everywhere. But do you think parents want the kisd to suffer that way? No, they don't. This is why we try to put the adopted kids in the non-discriminatory areas, we're giving these kids what those interracial couples couldn't give theirs.

With the gays re-locating, there'd be no point when you can give it to a good straight couple who own't ened to re-locate. Again, giivng it to the gay in that case would be a political statement, because you wouldn't give it to the straight couple if they were the ones who had to re-locate instead.

As for saying there's benefits from discrimination, there are consequences to that argument. You would only logically subject the child to that environment if you thought it was better to be in that environment. But then you should be placing all children in those environments, which would be absurd.

See, I don't think you actually think discrimination is actually better for the child (I could be wrong though, correct me if I am), you're just trying to justify it. But if you concede it's not acually better, then you lose the point, because again, there's no logic in sending kids there when we can place them in better areas.

Ok so interracial couples should not be able to adopt children. But even if they have children themselves, would it not be better for the child to be taken away and sent to a non-interracial family? That would be best for the child, correct?

 

[El Nino]

"Conventional" parenting in discriminatory areas will always happen. You need children everywhere. But do you think parents want the kisd to suffer that way? No, they don't. This is why we try to put the adopted kids in the non-discriminatory areas, we're giving these kids what those interracial couples couldn't give theirs.

I think we are both going in circles at this point, and I'm not sure how to stop it.

The implication of your reasoning is that if all minority parents were to give their kids away to white parents, their kids would grow up to be more well-adjusted people. This is a problematic viewpoint for a number of reasons, but ignoring the most glaring one (which I hope you can see for yourself), even if a minority kid were raised by white parents, that kid will still be a minority. If a gay kid were adopted by straight parents, that kid would still experience discrimination.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on the fact that there is no such thing as a "non-discriminatory" area. But even in your language you attribute discrimination to "areas," indicating that prejudice is a trait belonging to environments, not to the individual who is being discriminated against.

Picking out potential parents isn't like picking out cabbage at the grocery store. It isn't as if you can just turn down one applicant and know that another one that's "just as good, only without the social stigma" is going to just pop out of nowhere.

With the gays re-locating, there'd be no point when you can give it to a good straight couple who own't ened to re-locate. Again, giivng it to the gay in that case would be a political statement, because you wouldn't give it to the straight couple if they were the ones who had to re-locate instead.

Considering that people often travel to other countries to adopt children and bring them back home (essentially forcing the child to relocate across long distances), I'm not sure where you're getting this from. A lot of people relocate multiple times in their lives for various reasons. If one parent loses their job, maybe the whole family has to move out of state. You, as head of the adoption agency, can't foresee that, nor can you prevent such things from happening.

You make the assumption that children raised by gay parents are automatically going to be teased or discriminated against. Yet you acknowledge that discrimination is a trait belonging to "areas." So if a gay couple lived in an area that were tolerant to people who are openly gay, what would be the issue? And if they were willing to move in order to properly raise their child, what would be the issue?

See, I don't think you actually think discrimination is actually better for the child (I could be wrong though, correct me if I am), you're just trying to justify it. But if you concede it's not acually better, then you lose the point, because again, there's no logic in sending kids there when we can place them in better areas.

You seem to be under the impression that discrimination ruins people. And you also seem to be lacking in the knowledge of how discrimination actually affects people. You also totally ignored my comments about parents who work in dangeorus professions being able to adopt children even if their occupations increase the likelihood of their death while the child is still young.

You said that child are "needed" everywhere. That means that parents are "needed" everywhere, even in places that are heavily prejudiced. Banning gay couples from adoption decreases the pool of potential parents, which ultimately leaves a child without a permanent home. Discrimination is an environmental factor no different from earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, wars, cancer, or any number of things that can happen to you while you are alive. As the head of an adoption agency, you can't predict when the next disaster is going to strike. All you can do is pick a family that has the capability of navigating the storm, whether it is a natural disaster, an economic disaster, schoolyard bullying, or social discrimination. I don't know how much more clear I can be. I already stated that prejudice comes from living wtihin society. Society is prejudiced against fat people, against ugly people, against socially maladjusted people, against loners, against smart people, against stupid people. Would you allow an ugly couple to adopt a kid, knowing that society favors people who are attractive?

As for saying there's benefits from discrimination, there are consequences to that argument. You would only logically subject the child to that environment if you thought it was better to be in that environment. But then you should be placing all children in those environments, which would be absurd.

I'm waiting for you to ask me why my parents had me.

 

[Photos]

married couples are legally allowed to adopt, therefore, as gay marriages are legal, gay married couples are allowed to adopt. equality.

 

[Seikend]

married couples are legally allowed to adopt, therefore, as gay marriages are legal, gay married couples are allowed to adopt. equality.

The following is in the OP:
"We also have to remember that no one, straight or gay, has the right to adopt a child. It's a privellage bestowed upon the fortunate couple, it's not something one is entitled to"


Dre, could you clarify something for me? When you say both a "good" straight and gay couple:

Is your question in a theoretical scenario, where both being "good" means straight and gay couple are identical in what they can provide for a child, the only difference being the social stigma?

Or are you suggesting that in a real life scenario where "good" means both the straight and gay couple are considered competent enough to raise a child?

 

[Photos]

The following is in the OP:
"We also have to remember that no one, straight or gay, has the right to adopt a child. It's a privellage bestowed upon the fortunate couple, it's not something one is entitled to"

What i mean is it is legal. it's not a right, sure, but legal, yes. by refusing to allow a couple to adopt a child, it is then illegal for the said couple to adopt the said child.
if a gay married couple has the same status as a straight married couple, then by equality, they are both just as allowed to adopt and cannot be refused on the grounds that a couple is gay or lesbian.

 

[Seikend]

What i mean is it is legal. it's not a right, sure, but legal, yes. by refusing to allow a couple to adopt a child, it is then illegal for the said couple to adopt the said child.
if a gay married couple has the same status as a straight married couple, then by equality, they are both just as allowed to adopt and cannot be refused on the grounds that a couple is gay or lesbian.

I hope I'm not misinterpreting your stance Dre, apologies if I am.

The OP is proposing that allowing a gay couple to adopt isn't in the best interests of the child, due to the social stigma.

Do you accept this is true?

If so, you are tampering with a child's potential future, purely for the sake of equality. You say it is illegal to deny a gay couple, but if gay adoption isn't in the best interests of the child, then would the law be morally wrong? Why should a morally wrong law stand?

If not, you need to address the OP's points directly, and explain why you don't believe it to be true.

 

[ballin4life]

So Seikend, should interracial couples be allowed to adopt?

 

[asianaussie]

Please elaborate on how the child's 'best interests' surpass the interests of the gay couple. Wouldn't purposely denying the gay couple the adoption be discriminatory, and therefore advocating the stigma you mentioned?

 

[Seikend]

So Seikend, should interracial couples be allowed to adopt?

My personal stance is yes, interracial and gay couples should be allowed to adopt.

I believe that the social stigma is a valid point (for gays at least, I'm not aware of a stigma for interracial couples but I'll accept someone's proposal that there is), but it is only one point out of many that need to be considered.

If it was a theoretical scenario where the non-interracial and the interracial couple are identical except for their race, and social stigma was present, I would always favour the non-interracial couple.

However, this is not a scenario that will occur. Different couples will not be identical in their qualities and what they can offer for a child (Location, Income, Personality), and to not allow a gay or interracial couple to adopt just because there is a competent straight and/or non-interracial couple available is absurd.

I do believe that the possibility of social stigma cannot be overlooked though, and if the child will be brought up in an environment where that stigma occurs, it needs to be seen as a negative towards allowing that couple to adopt. However, it is just one negative and it does not overrule every other factor.

 

[stingers]

Yes.
But only on alternate fridays.

 

[ballin4life]

My overall point is that if you support the status quo because it is the status quo then things won't ever change for the better.

 

[asianaussie]

I agree with ballin, if the status quo is the status quo of yesterday, it should not be supported in a changing world.

Social stigmas stay stigmas because nobody influential indicates that they are not.

nice to be on your side for once lol

 

[Seikend]

My overall point is that if you support the status quo because it is the status quo then things won't ever change for the better.

The vast majority of people aren't questioning a gay person's ability to be a parent in particular, but they are questioning homosexuality itself. We need to change people's perceptions of homosexuality in general, make it seem acceptable and just another unimportant facet of someone's being. Then the social stigma associated with gay adoption will fade.


Sacrificing a child's future is not the way to go about changing this status quo. It's not actually dealing with the broader issue, nor is it reasonable to pull a child into a political debate, if they don't want to be part of it.


There are many ways of challenging the status quo, and I agree that it should be done. But this is one medium that isn't appropriate to do it through.

 

[ballin4life]

Yes, and people used to question interracial marriages.

If you claim that you have to do "what's best for the child" then by the same logic it would be good to take children away from interracial parents, so they don't have to live with that stigma. But I doubt that most people would be in favor of this, and doing this would likely have hindered the acceptance of interracial marriages in society.

At some point it's not just about the children.

 

[Seikend]

Yes, and people used to question interracial marriages.

People used to question interracial marriages because racism was around. People were against it because they saw one race as inferior.

Back when racism was at a high in America, interracial marriages were looked down upon. When people fought for the rights of black people and gained them, interracial marriages became more acceptable. They didn't initially deal with the racism by marrying interracially, but by fighting for their rights as black people.

I think that you believe that interracial marriage and gay adoption are the causes of the acceptance, while I see them as the effect of people accepting races and sexuality more generally.

If you claim that you have to do "what's best for the child" then by the same logic it would be good to take children away from interracial parents, so they don't have to live with that stigma. But I doubt that most people would be in favor of this, and doing this would likely have hindered the acceptance of interracial marriages in society.

At some point it's not just about the children.

At no point have I said stigma is the deciding factor in what's best for the child. That is not my stance.

The social stigma is a negative factor, out of many different factors. My logic still stands in this case because the separation of the children from their parents will cause far more trauma than the stigma they may suffer.