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.
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.