Should gay couples be allowed to adopt?

[Seikend]

This shouldn't be a debate solely on the choice that is better for the child. This debate surrounds another issue regarding the rights of gay couples. Removing them of that right for the reason that gay couples are discriminated against is a poor reason. Do you also think it should be illegal for black parents to move to a white conservative neighborhood (regardless of the wisdom of that choice)? The fact that gay people are discriminated against at all is a problem in society, and restricting their rights isn't helping their cause.

Think of the (gay) children

Adoption is not a right of any person, gay or straight. It's a privilege.

And no one has suggested that gay's shouldn't be allowed to adopt. The stance being held by some is that it has to be considered a negative factor.

 

[Mike]

Adoption is not a right of any person, gay or straight. It's a privilege.

That does not mean it should be a discriminatory privilege. if straight couples have the privilege to adopt, it is the right of the gay couple to be able to do the same, as they are not shown to be any worse of parents.

And no one has suggested that gay's shouldn't be allowed to adopt. The stance being held by some is that it has to be considered a negative factor.

And that shouldn't even exist! Gay couples should not be evaluated any harsher than straight couples over something which no parent, gay or straight, can have control over.

Besides, there are enough kids that need to go up for adoption. I it won't do children any good to give preference to straight couples if both will be allowed to adopt. If the gay couple doesn't get the kid they wanted because it was given to a straight couple, they would simply get a different one.

 

[Seikend]

And that shouldn't even exist! Gay couples should not be evaluated any harsher than straight couples over something which no parent, gay or straight, can have control over.

Just because you don't have any control over it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

How about mental disorders, particularly those that are genetic or developed at birth? Would you ignore those?

The unfortunate fact is, we're not all created equally. We all have differences and with these come inherent advantages and disadvantages that we can't control.

Besides, there are enough kids that need to go up for adoption. I it won't do children any good to give preference to straight couples if both will be allowed to adopt. If the gay couple doesn't get the kid they wanted because it was given to a straight couple, they would simply get a different one.

I agree with this. Once again, no one has made the claim that gays can't adopt. It's just that social prejudice due to their sexuality is a negative factor that must be considered. This does not stop gay couples from adopting, as it is one of many factors (Such as wealth, personality etc.) that need to be considered in the adoption process.

The implication of this is that in a scenario where two couples are seen as good as each other in terms of how appropriate choice they are, but one couple is gay and one is straight, the straight couple takes priority.

 

[C.S. Dinah]

Adoption is not a right of any person, gay or straight. It's a privilege.

I'm curious to why you say that adoption is a privilege. I would think that there are certain conditions that need to be agreed upon, a contract.

And no one has suggested that gay's shouldn't be allowed to adopt. The stance being held by some is that it has to be considered a negative factor.

No. The overall outcomes of a child being adopted by gay couples will not always a negative factor at the least. You also have to consider, alot of Children need a home out there.

 

[Sieguest]

I'm curious to why you say that adoption is a privilege. I would think that there are certain conditions that need to be agreed upon, a contract.

I'm not sure how you've addressed his point here. How would there being a contract make it any less of a privilege or more of a right?

 

[Seikend]

I'm curious to why you say that adoption is a privilege. I would think that there are certain conditions that need to be agreed upon, a contract.

What I mean by privilege is that it's not something that everyone is inherently entitled to. A privilege is conditional, it must be earned. In this particular case, to earn the privilege one must be a suitable carer for a child.

No. The overall outcomes of a child being adopted by gay couples will not always a negative factor at the least. You also have to consider, alot of Children need a home out there.

I'm not saying it's an overall outcome. By factor, I mean it is one thing that must be considered, out of many things.

 

[Mike]

Just because you don't have any control over it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

How about mental disorders, particularly those that are genetic or developed at birth? Would you ignore those?

The unfortunate fact is, we're not all created equally. We all have differences and with these come inherent advantages and disadvantages that we can't control.

That's true. I actually meant something else but I realized it actually wasn't a rebuttal to anything that was brought up.

The implication of this is that in a scenario where two couples are seen as good as each other in terms of how appropriate choice they are, but one couple is gay and one is straight, the straight couple takes priority.

That doesn't address the "problem" that gay couples will adopt anyways.

 

[1048576]

Seriously? ok, so let's see if i'm getting this straight, no pun intended.
You're saying that a gay couple is more likely to move than a straight couple?
please explain.
EDIT: so are you saying that because a straight couple's child will not get penalized depending where they live even if they move, but a gay couple's child may or may not be penalized if they move, but there is a higher chance the child will be penalized because it is more likely that a gay couple will move to an area where they are less tolerated than a straight couple?

@1048576:
Christians love making **** up.

erm, i kinda resent this. it's the stuck up churchies that just go to church to look good that do that kind of thing. in other words, the pretend christians that just do it to look good. the ones that just sit in church nodding and um'hmm-ing, then being all touchy-feely with each other.
what i'm saying is don't associate people like me with people like them.

I should clarify that I meant it as an 'in general', not as a 'for all.' I mean, is there an athiest mirror site to conservapedia or fstdt.com?

But anyway, giving a child to a gay couple teaches that child to be more culturally well-rounded and tolerant of those who do not cause harm but instead follow different cultural norms or have different physical characteristics. You give a child to the average heterosexual couple and, well, look where we are today with something so insignificant as sexual orientation. Can you imagine how uppity these kids would get if they saw a Mosque. Oh wait...

 

[C.S. Dinah]

I'm not sure how you've addressed his point here. How would there being a contract make it any less of a privilege or more of a right?

I'm saying that the contract will serve as an oath, and in a way a privilege. You are given the privilege to adopt. You will have to vow and yield whatever the conditions was stated in the contract. For this case, the child, it will be assumed that you will take care of him/her until they are old enough to take care of him/her self. Consequences of not yielding to the contract are also stated. That way the child is ensured some saftey, and is also considered the child's right.

What I mean by privilege is that it's not something that everyone is inherently entitled to. A privilege is conditional, it must be earned. In this particular case, to earn the privilege one must be a suitable carer for a child.

Alright I got that, and it is understandable. My reason is above.

I'm not saying it's an overall outcome. By factor, I mean it is one thing that must be considered, out of many things.

I could say the same thing in my previous post.

 

[Photos]

Adoption is not a right of any person, gay or straight. It's a privilege.

And no one has suggested that gay's shouldn't be allowed to adopt. The stance being held by some is that it has to be considered a negative factor.

Very nicely put! i concur.


(can't remember who said this):

The implication of this is that in a scenario where two couples are seen as good as each other in terms of how appropriate choice they are, but one couple is gay and one is straight, the straight couple takes priority.

it's an impossible scenario, first come first serve.

ok, what makes the prejudice against gays any worse than the prejudices against: black people, white people (in a black community), Mexicans, middle easterners? What solution can be made that fits gays/ all people who have some sort prejudice against them? because their solution is the gays solution. and vise versa. heck, with all that, why don't we solve world peace as well?! food for all!

the thing of it is, gay couples should not not be allowed to adopt for the fact that they are gay. it's about their background. their aptitude in being able to raise a child. that's what matters.

 

[Sieguest]

it's an impossible scenario, first come first serve.

Do you mind explaining? And do you have any evidence to back that up? If adoptions worked on a first come first serve basis then that would mean that a family unfit to adopt would be able to adopt before a family that is fit to adopt. Quite frankly, adoptions don't work on a strictly first come first serve basis. See here.

the thing of it is, gay couples should not not be allowed to adopt for the fact that they are gay. it's about their background. their aptitude in being able to raise a child. that's what matters.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that gay couples should be allowed to adopt? Or are you saying they should not be allowed to adopt?

 

[Mike]

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that gay couples should be allowed to adopt? Or are you saying they should not be allowed to adopt?

He means they should not be restricted from adopting. But that is not what Seikend is suggesting. He is saying straight couples should have priority over gay couples when adopting. But that isn't a solution to anything! If gay couples are still allowed to adopt, they will adopt another child. So instead of giving them the kid they want and risking bullying of that kid, they are given another kid that they want to risk that same bullying. The only solution to this "problem" would be to restrict them from adopting.

 

[Dre89]

They may not necessarily get the second kid either, because there could be s straight couple that wants that kid as well.

 

[Mike]

No... the reality right now is that there are always kids to adopt.

Also, your reason for giving preference to straight couples is a problem with society, not with the gay couple. Your idea only reinforces that unfair discrimination while fighting it is a step toward equality.

Again, think of the gay children.

 

[Photos]

ah, yes, restricted was the word i was looking for. thanks mike, for clearing that up.

now, guest, i looked through that article you posted and found this: Once the home study is complete and the individuals have passed with flying colors, the next step in the process is to match the prospective parents up with the child whom they are going to adopt. The staff at the adoption agency has been working on this match all along. They will by now know the adoptive parents preferences and have done the research to make the perfect match.

they're not going to match two couples with the same kid. that's why they have a system of doing things, so that they don't have to decide on who gets the kid. and it's still first come, first serve. the unfit are simply not allowed to adopt, and the fit adopt.

Again, think of the gay children

lol, you know, the gayby population has risen, i'm sure.
but i'm sure that if by children you include teenagers, then yes, that is a valid point.

 

[Sieguest]

ah, yes, restricted was the word i was looking for. thanks mike, for clearing that up.

now, guest, i looked through that article you posted and found this: Once the home study is complete and the individuals have passed with flying colors, the next step in the process is to match the prospective parents up with the child whom they are going to adopt. The staff at the adoption agency has been working on this match all along. They will by now know the adoptive parents preferences and have done the research to make the perfect match.

they're not going to match two couples with the same kid. that's why they have a system of doing things, so that they don't have to decide on who gets the kid. and it's still first come, first serve. the unfit are simply not allowed to adopt, and the fit adopt.

You contradict yourself.
First come first serve is exactly what it's name implies. Whoever comes first will get the service regardless of external factors. The fact that those unfit to adopt do not adopt all ready disproves that adoption is first come, first serve.

If we were to continue with the chain of logic you're using now then things such as college admissions, financial aid, jobs, and other things with a degree of competition to them would be relegated to a first come first serve basis.
Both A and B qualify for a position.
A is much more qualified than B
B submitted his/her app two days before A
B gets the position.

Every since of acquiring the maximum quality of people to attain positions becomes null and void using your logic and as evidenced by your surroundings and the fact the adoption process is structured the way that it is we can see that that is not true. In this case, first come-first serve only works in the case that both parties are qualified to the same degree. A=B. But we know in the situation given that that is not true.

 

[Photos]

You contradict yourself.
First come first serve is exactly what it's name implies. Whoever comes first will get the service regardless of external factors. The fact that those unfit to adopt do not adopt all ready disproves that adoption is first come, first serve.

*sigh* seriously? alright, i'll make myself a little clearer. you have to jump through hoops 1, 2, and 3 to be able to adopt. once you are at that point, you get the kid. if you get to that point first, then it is first come first serve. The first to get to that point, gets the kid.

If we were to continue with the chain of logic you're using now then things such as college admissions, financial aid, jobs, and other things with a degree of competition to them would be relegated to a first come first serve basis.
Both A and B qualify for a position.
A is much more qualified than B
B submitted his/her app two days before A
B gets the position.

Every since of acquiring the maximum quality of people to attain positions becomes null and void using your logic and as evidenced by your surroundings and the fact the adoption process is structured the way that it is we can see that that is not true. In this case, first come-first serve only works in the case that both parties are qualified to the same degree. A=B. But we know in the situation given that that is not true.

are you serious? just because you've taken this out of context, i'll just go with it. ok, lets say you have one open position. guy A comes along wanting to fill it. he meets all the requirements and is accepted. Guy B (who is fantastically overqualified) comes along afterward looking for a job but the position is already taken by guy A. he came first, and recieved first.

if it makes it any better, let me restate my original argument to this problem right here:
it is an impossible situation because two people will not be matched with the same kid. the computer makes sure of this.

 

[1048576]

They may not necessarily get the second kid either, because there could be s straight couple that wants that kid as well.

But that straight couple would be worse than the previous couple, assuming we give kids to the best possible parents, so they'd be worse then the gay couple, and surely there's a point when everything else matters more than this social stigma, so a blanket ban on gay adoption makes no sense.

How many times do I have to make this point before you address it? This is 4 going on 5.

And yeah, my proposal that we keep kids away from fundie parents (since, y'know, they're the bad people and the actual source of the problem) has gone unrebutted as well.

 

[Dre89]

Firstly, the second straight couple could be just as good as the first one.

I probably wouldn't give the kid to fubdies either. I don't understand why you're even asking that question. The principle I'm using applies to all couples, not just gays.

The reason why this thread us about gays is because I feel this principle isn't applied in the debate about it.

 

[Photos]

But that straight couple would be worse than the previous couple, assuming we give kids to the best possible parents, so they'd be worse then the gay couple, and surely there's a point when everything else matters more than this social stigma, so a blanket ban on gay adoption makes no sense.

i agree on the blanket ban point you made, but could you explain further why the gay couple is better than the straight couple?

 

[C.S. Dinah]

i agree on the blanket ban point you made, but could you explain further why the gay couple is better than the straight couple?

Why would the straight couple be better than a gay one? A gay couple can be just as good as a straight couple, possibly even better you dont really know.

it's an impossible scenario, first come first serve.

the thing of it is, gay couples should not not be allowed to adopt for the fact that they are gay. it's about their background. their aptitude in being able to raise a child. that's what matters.

Same thing here.

Concerning gay couples you believe that they should not be able to adopt just because of that specific factor? Background checks are commonly given throughout each and every adoption process. Also part of the process requires those adopting a child to take educational classes on raising one. So you cant just say gay couples should not be able to adopt simply because they are gay, when straights can be no better then they are. Both go through the same process, even that which couple applies for adoption first (first come, first serve).

Those statments are kinda a stalemate.

 

[1048576]

Firstly, the second straight couple could be just as good as the first one.

I probably wouldn't give the kid to fubdies either. I don't understand why you're even asking that question. The principle I'm using applies to all couples, not just gays.

The reason why this thread us about gays is because I feel this principle isn't applied in the debate about it.

Thanks for the prompt response.

The principle isn't applied to fundies or fat people either, so why restrict it specifically to gays?

If fundies didn't have kids, then there would be no stigma, and gays could be on level footing. If you raise your kid to hate, then you increase the stigma, making the cutoff difference in the gay ability vs. straight ability to raise a child higher, which makes all subsequent children worse off as they now either have to deal with increased stigma or settle for a slightly inferior parent (since some good gay couples will be removed from the pool.) Hence, fundie adoption has a profound negative effect on all children.

Do you agree that a good gay couple should have the kid over a bad straight couple, and that at some point other factors like less of a nuturing environment, fewer recreational/educational opportunities, etc... override the fact that the alternative is a gay couple.

I don't think the stigma of having gay parents is bad at all for would be children. I think it should function literally as a tiebreaker, and not even then if fundies could just be kept from their kids. I've made several of these arguments in previous posts, but basically, 1.) young people don't care. 2.)nobody cares about your parents. 3.) everyone's abnormal in some way, and gay parents could teach kids to cope better with the eventual adversity than straight parents (their kid might get teased for being a nerd or having a speech impediment, or heaven forbid, being gay, y'know, there's always something.) 4.) the kid grows up to be tolerant of "alternative lifestyles", so positive externalities for other kids. 5.) At first, gay couples would know they'd be under increased scrutiny, and they'd know they're serving as role models for future legislators deciding on this issue, so they'd prolly be less likely to slack off their parenting skills after they pass inspection than a straight couple would. I mean, how many stories do you hear about right now where a gay couple murders their kid?

 

[Sieguest]

*sigh* seriously? alright, i'll make myself a little clearer. you have to jump through hoops 1, 2, and 3 to be able to adopt. once you are at that point, you get the kid. if you get to that point first, then it is first come first serve. The first to get to that point, gets the kid.

Did you look at the definition of the idiom? It says that it has to exclude all external factors. "hoops 1,2, and 3" are external factors. The fact you even used "the first to get to that point even proves my point further that you're accounting for external factors, which are not included in something that operates on a first come first serve basis.

are you serious? just because you've taken this out of context, i'll just go with it. ok, lets say you have one open position. guy A comes along wanting to fill it. he meets all the requirements and is accepted. Guy B (who is fantastically overqualified) comes along afterward looking for a job but the position is already taken by guy A. he came first, and recieved first.

You misinterpreted my example. Notice the examples I said were college admissions, financial aid, and others with a competitive nature to them. Quite frankly the things I mentioned in my example don't work the way you just described (Excluding the idea of "assured admissions").

And given that... is it really necessary to put "are you serious?" Indirect insults don't really make much of a point.

if it makes it any better, let me restate my original argument to this problem right here:
it is an impossible situation because two people will not be matched with the same kid. the computer makes sure of this.

This is better.

 

[Seikend]

Been a while since I've viewed this topic, time to play the catch up game.

I'm saying that the contract will serve as an oath, and in a way a privilege. You are given the privilege to adopt. You will have to vow and yield whatever the conditions was stated in the contract. For this case, the child, it will be assumed that you will take care of him/her until they are old enough to take care of him/her self. Consequences of not yielding to the contract are also stated. That way the child is ensured some saftey, and is also considered the child's right.

Apologies if I misinterpret this. I've lost my train of though since I last posted.

Is the suggestion that since the effect of discrimination isn't guaranteed, it's not necessarily an issue, and therefore it only needs to be considered if it goes out of hand afterwards? In this case, it would void the contract?

A fair point, and I think when considered a gay couple alone, it makes sense. Being gay shouldn't prevent the couple from adopting.

However, the stance I'm taking is that being straight is a preferable trait over gay, not an outright ban on gay adoption. If the possibility of discrimination, a voided contract and therefore a child parent-less (again) can be avoided by taking a straight couple over a gay couple, why would you take the chance?

Again, I'd like to restate that I don't think that in every situation a straight couple takes priority over a gay couple. In this scenario I'm considering parents that are deemed equally capable, irrespective of their sexuality. I can see no reason to take the gay couple over a straight couple in this scenario. From this I'm concluding that being gay is a negative factor when it comes to adoption. The weight of the negative factor is something I'm uncertain of.

-------------

He means they should not be restricted from adopting. But that is not what Seikend is suggesting. He is saying straight couples should have priority over gay couples when adopting. But that isn't a solution to anything! If gay couples are still allowed to adopt, they will adopt another child. So instead of giving them the kid they want and risking bullying of that kid, they are given another kid that they want to risk that same bullying. The only solution to this "problem" would be to restrict them from adopting.

The "not getting the child they want" point is invalid. If the gay couple get a child over a straight couple, you end up with a straight couple not getting the kid they want. Works both ways.

Addressing the same risk issue: I'm not sure what the "problem" you're suggesting is in the first place.

You make the assumption that the number of children who need to be adopted is greater than, or equal to the number of parents willing to and capable of adopting (number of potential parents <= number of potential children). and so the decision is whether a parent is suitable or not.

My point makes the assumption that a preference between potential parents must be made, i.e. there is a scarcity in children who need to be adopted. (number of potential parents > number of potential children)

To use my point in a scenario where there are more potential children than parents is taking it out of context. It is irrelevant, as you are suggesting a scenario where the decision is whether a parent is suitable or not, whilst my point is in the scenario where the decision is what parent is more suitable.

In a situation where you have two equal parents, the risk of bullying is a deciding factor. In a situation where it's either be adopted or not be adopted, the risk of bullying is not a deciding factor.

Also, my point is not completely void. I understand that generally, there are far more children than potential parents out there. But, this is not guaranteed in every local community. It also stands in an isolated situation, where you consider an individual child and potential parents.

-------------

Also, your reason for giving preference to straight couples is a problem with society, not with the gay couple. Your idea only reinforces that unfair discrimination while fighting it is a step toward equality.

Again, think of the gay children.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11621922&postcount=40

First section.

-------------


Think that's me pretty much caught up. Tell me if I missed anything significant.

 

[Mike]

You misunderstand my point. If you give preference to a straight couple, you only passed the problem of bullying to another child. Yes, this has to assume the gay couple will adopt regardless of getting their initial first pick, but this is a valid assumption as there are so many more children needing adoptions than parents wanting to.

While your argument is valid according to your scenario, it cannot be realistically applied. The type of bullying the child might receive is such a small part in the child's environment when growing up that it should be a minimal consideration except in the most extreme neighborhoods. Your argument assumes "all else about the couples are equal" but if you accept that condition, of course it should be given to the straight couple! That's not an interesting debate. It would be much more though provoking if the issue were "should being a gay couple be negative factor in adoption?"

 

[Seikend]

Your argument assumes "all else about the couples are equal" but if you accept that condition, of course it should be given to the straight couple! That's not an interesting debate. It would be much more though provoking if the issue were "should being a gay couple be negative factor in adoption?"

On what basis is it not an interesting debate? It may seem obvious to you, but that isn't the case for everyone. Some people firmly believe that straight and gays are equal in every respect, and should be treated equally in every respect. Some people believe allowing more gay adoptions would further gay rights. When there is valid points to either side, there is an interesting debate.

And I've said my stance on the latter several times: It should be considered a negative factor, but it's one factor out of many and not a deciding factor in itself. If someone questions that point, I'll answer it.

While your argument is valid according to your scenario, it cannot be realistically applied. The type of bullying the child might receive is such a small part in the child's environment when growing up that it should be a minimal consideration except in the most extreme neighborhoods.

I'm inclined to agree with you that it is a very insignificant factor, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Acrostic posted some surveys and statistics before showing levels of gay acceptance through various factors, but we can't assume what kind of bullying someone might experience for having gay parents. We just don't have that data. To put a blanket statement over the magnitude of the bullying factor would be silly, it's down to each individual environment. That's why I've not stated how much influence it should have on a decision, but simply that it has a negative influence.

 

[Mike]

Right, I take that back about it not being an interesting debate. There are actually a lot of things to consider. One of which is personal growth of the child. While bullying never makes a kid feel good, it forces the kid to think about why he's being bullied. In many kids, this causes them to become stronger in the form of "I'm going to be myself and I don't care if you judge me for it."