Should Gay Couples Be Allowed To Adopt?

[WinePusher]

Should gay partners, male or female, be allowed to adopt and raise children of any age.

In my opinion, this is a direct assult on the nuclear family and it harms the childhood devlopment process.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/g ... t/9290.htm

This is not a gay rights issue, this is about the rights of children and what they can and cannot be subject to. The rights of gay couples does not trump the psychological health and devlopment of a child.

[Crazy Ivan]

Again, do you think a child that does not wish to go with a gay couple should be forced to?

You mean, manifesting specific wish not to be adopted by a gay couple? Nope. Who would want a prejudiced child, anyway? Personally, I think it takes considerable age to be prejudiced against gay couples, or to manifest such prejudice in any way. Perhaps an age when not even gay couples are particularly interested. And by "prejudice", I mean even the state of mind where a kid specifically wants a father, as opposed to NOT wanting two mothers. It's a legitimate point of view, for a kid that old.

This is your only concern? Any kid NOT old enough to manifest specific unwillingness to be adopted by a gay couple is eligible?

[Abraxas]

. Now, would you like it to be the general norm for society to raise children with same sex parents rather then opposite sex parents?

False dichotomy fallacy. There is no reason it has to be either/or. It is entirely possible to live in a society with both same sex parents and opposite sex parents and even some single parents too.

If you do not agree with the Age of Consent Laws, then start a new thread or take it up with your state legislator. Children do have the right to decide, once they reach the age of consent.

Again, do you think a child that does not wish to go with a gay couple should be forced to?

Depends on the age of the child. Children often want or don't want all kinds of things. How many children wish they had different parents, even if they are what would be considered good parents? How many kids would eat ice cream for dinner every night if they could? There is a reason we don't often let children decide what is best for themselves, why should this be different?

And would it not be more practical, if gay people wished to adopt, to only adopt those children that have the capability ot consent? Or would that still be an infringement on gay rights?

It would unless the same restrictions were applied to straight couples.

As I have said, the evidence on both sides is inconclusive and it cannot be determined for certain that a childs achievements or drawbacks are due directly because of their parents sexual orientations.

We have statistical correlation that favors gay adoption, however.

[WinePusher]

You mean, manifesting specific wish not to be adopted by a gay couple? Nope. Who would want a prejudiced child, anyway?

Is this another jump? You are aganist gay marriage and gay adoption, you are homophobic and discriminatory. A child wishes to not live in a house hold with gay parents, thus he is prejudicied? How does that follow..........

Personally, I think it takes considerable age to be prejudiced against gay couples, or to manifest such prejudice in any way. Perhaps an age when not even gay couples are particularly interested. And by "prejudice", I mean even the state of mind where a kid specifically wants a father, as opposed to NOT wanting two mothers. It's a legitimate point of view, for a kid that old.

Someone who wishes to choose their living enviroment for themselves and not have it be mandated to them by a government and gay rights activists is not predjudice.

[WinePusher]

False dichotomy fallacy. There is no reason it has to be either/or. It is entirely possible to live in a society with both same sex parents and opposite sex parents and even some single parents too.

Would you have me re-phrase the question so that you can answer it?

We have statistical correlation that favors gay adoption, however.

Are you able to list any evidence (in your own words, not some link) telling us how homosexual parents is more favorable to childhood development than heterosexual parents. Please do not list any post hoc fallacies, list specific behavorial occurances of the child and how they are more "favorable" due to the parents homosexual tendencies.

[WinePusher]

While I understand that you feel strongly that we would be forcing something on foster children against their wishes, I will need to see something more concrete that demonstrates that the majority of foster children would be opposed to such an arrangement.

Never claimed that the majority of foster children would be aganist such an arrangement. My claim is that the foster child should be able to choose for him or herself (at any age when it is possible to voice their opinions) the family he or she wishes to go to. Some may wish to go with gays, thats fine, some may wish not to, thats fine.I have no clue what the majority of foster children prefer, nor do I claim to know.

And, I hope you are being sarcastic with the last portion. I fail to see how legally recognizing something that is already being done (homosexuals raising children) equate to changing societal norms so that only same sex parents raise children?

I never claimed that only same sex parents would raise children. My claim/question was would you favor a general norm for American society to raise children in same sex parent households or opposite sex parent households. Please answer my question.

I think that children who are not of the age of consent have about as much say in whom they go home with as they would in any other decision of that magnitude - meaning their wants would be taken into consideration, but ultimately the decision is going to be made at a higher level the same as it would in any other adoption.

Well, we disagree on this. The ultimate decision should not come from a "higher level" who sees gay rights as more important to the individuality of children. The ultimate decision should come from the child.

I am sure the reviewers of the studies presented do not agree with you about the studies inconclusiveness pertaining to the ability of homosexual parents to be as successful parents as heterosexual parents, otherwise those studies would not have been published in the highly regarded publications that they were.

Granted, I have glanced at the links that micatala has posted and not read them fully, but I have yet to see the factors that shows us how the parents homosexuality leads to better development of the child. Perhaps you and others can post the benefits of homosexual parenting in your words.

You made the argument that there needed to strong justification to change the status quo, because that was the way things have been done for eons (paraphrasing).

Yes, thats basically right.

My response was to tell you that just because it has been done that way for eons, does not mean it is a good or healthy policy - slavery being one example.

This analogy would only hold if you will also contend that the preservation of the nuclear family is also bad and equatable with slavery.

You were not comparing homosexual marriage to slavery, but you were saying basically "that's the way it's always been done" which in itself is not necessarily a good enough reason, especially with the mass amounts of justification otherwise provided by posters such as micatala, McCulloch, goat, and myself if I may be so bold (and I apologize if I left anyone out).

The way it has "always been done" is that children are raised by the father and mother who created them. Again, if you want your analogy to slavery to hold, you must declare the practice of heterosexual parenting to be as horrific to slavery. Otherwise, this is inconsistent. I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

[msmcmickey]

The way it has "always been done" is that children are raised by the father and mother who created them. Again, if you want your analogy to slavery to hold, you must declare the practice of heterosexual parenting to be as horrific to slavery. Otherwise, this is inconsistent. I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or don't understand the analogy. I'm the one who first brought up slavery because you stated that things should stay the way they always have been in "traditional America." I brought up slavery to make the point that not all things in "traditional America" are necessarily good, the ostracizing and dehumanizing of gay people being one, and slavery being another. I think the analogy is valid and not that difficult to comprehend. The crux of this discussion is whether or not gay people should be allowed to adopt orphan children, so to apply the definition of a "nuclear family" as being the biological father and mother here is also inconsistent as there is no biological mother and father in the equation. Therefore, the correct question to ask is whether or not gay people are fit parents who can provide a good home to children who do not otherwise have family, not whether or not children are better off with their biological father and mother.

This is the very reason I brought up slavery, because in "traditional America" gays have been dehumanized and ostracized as child molesters, perverts and all manner of untruths, just as slavery was thought of as being normal. What is acceptable and considered "good" or "bad" changes with time, knowledge and other factors. Slavery is no longer considered good, for reasons I hope I do not have to explain. Homosexuality is fast becoming something no longer considered bad, because more and more people are using science, psychology and common sense to realize that homosexuality isn't all those bad things many people traditionally thought it was.

A study recently came out that I am certain you are aware of, which indicates that children of lesbian parents seem to be better off than that of their peers raised by heterosexual parents. As time goes on and more studies that demonstrate homosexuals are not bad or unfit parents and in fact raise children who are no different than their peers, then the real question is not going to be "should homosexuals be allowed to adopt?" but rather "What is your reason for not allowing homosexuals to adopt?" I think we are at that point already, as there are many thousands of examples at this point in history, of children raised by gay parents who turn out just fine. In fact, I believe your entire OP is a red herring. The real question is one of your prejudice [and that of the organization providing the data in the study you cited], not whether gay people are fit to be parents and should be allowed to adopt.

[ChaosBorders]

Someone who wishes to choose their living enviroment for themselves and not have it be mandated to them by a government and gay rights activists is not predjudice.

The question for debate is "Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Adopt?"
Few people seem to be strongly arguing that anyone should be allowed to adopt a child against their will, gay or otherwise. However, unless you are also arguing a gay couple should not be allowed to adopt a child that wants them to adopt it, it seems the general question of "Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Adopt" has been answered affirmatively.

Would you disagree?

[Crazy Ivan]

Is this another jump? You are aganist gay marriage and gay adoption, you are homophobic and discriminatory.

"Homophobic" doesn't necessarily follow. "Discriminatory", it most definitely is, by definition. But being "discriminatory" doesn't make it "bad".

A child wishes to not live in a house hold with gay parents, thus he is prejudicied? How does that follow..........

Having never lived with gay parents (assuming as much), not wanting to live with them shows a preconceived notion. "Prejudice" doesn't imply homophobia.

Someone who wishes to choose their living enviroment for themselves and not have it be mandated to them by a government and gay rights activists is not predjudice.

It's just too funny how you make adult arguments for children. How old do you think children have to be to claim these rights to themselves? Forgive me if I don't see children generally opposed to "big government" and "gay rights activists" choosing stuff for them. I stand by my statement that if a "child" doesn't want gay parents, they're probably too old anyway, and will require foster care until they're 21.

And I notice you're avoiding the question. If a child doesn't manifest either way, is it okay for a gay couple to adopt? Yay or nay, sir?

[chris_brown207]

While I understand that you feel strongly that we would be forcing something on foster children against their wishes, I will need to see something more concrete that demonstrates that the majority of foster children would be opposed to such an arrangement.

Never claimed that the majority of foster children would be aganist such an arrangement. My claim is that the foster child should be able to choose for him or herself (at any age when it is possible to voice their opinions) the family he or she wishes to go to. Some may wish to go with gays, thats fine, some may wish not to, thats fine.I have no clue what the majority of foster children prefer, nor do I claim to know.

Already being done, again - Age of Consent. If you wish to change the Age of Consent laws, that is a whole new thread entirely. If you wish to do so solely for homosexuals, that would be discrimination based on sexual orientation - something forbidden by the government and our constitution.

And, I hope you are being sarcastic with the last portion. I fail to see how legally recognizing something that is already being done (homosexuals raising children) equate to changing societal norms so that only same sex parents raise children?

I never claimed that only same sex parents would raise children. My claim/question was would you favor a general norm for American society to raise children in same sex parent households or opposite sex parent households. Please answer my question.

If same sex couples were the only ones willing to raise children, then absolutely I would. What I support is children being raised by willing and loving couples, no matter whether they are straight, gay, white, black, Jewish, Muslim, etc. etc.

I think that children who are not of the age of consent have about as much say in whom they go home with as they would in any other decision of that magnitude - meaning their wants would be taken into consideration, but ultimately the decision is going to be made at a higher level the same as it would in any other adoption.

Well, we disagree on this. The ultimate decision should not come from a "higher level" who sees gay rights as more important to the individuality of children. The ultimate decision should come from the child.

I have no problem with this, as long as they were of the age of consent. You ask for special consideration beyond that for this issue alone (unless you also feel that it is okay for a child under the age of consent to legally marry?).

I am sure the reviewers of the studies presented do not agree with you about the studies inconclusiveness pertaining to the ability of homosexual parents to be as successful parents as heterosexual parents, otherwise those studies would not have been published in the highly regarded publications that they were.

Granted, I have glanced at the links that micatala has posted and not read them fully, but I have yet to see the factors that shows us how the parents homosexuality leads to better development of the child. Perhaps you and others can post the benefits of homosexual parenting in your words.

I do not wish to repeat the evidence submitted by others, but I will summarize the claims: homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals to raise healthy and successful children (no one except you made the claim that they are better at it), there are tens of thousands of children that go un-adopted every year and allowing homosexuals to adopt would help to ease this burden, banning homosexuals from adopting for the sole reason of their sexual orientation is discrimination in violation of one's constitutional rights.

My response was to tell you that just because it has been done that way for eons, does not mean it is a good or healthy policy - slavery being one example.

This analogy would only hold if you will also contend that the preservation of the nuclear family is also bad and equatable with slavery.

And now I sense a little backtracking on this point - which was "this is the way it has always been," and not the preservation of the nuclear family. Why should we keep it this way because "that is the way it has always been."

The preservation of the nuclear family is another point entirely, and one in which evidence has not been provided for. How would allowing gay adoption destroy the nuclear family?

You were not comparing homosexual marriage to slavery, but you were saying basically "that's the way it's always been done" which in itself is not necessarily a good enough reason, especially with the mass amounts of justification otherwise provided by posters such as micatala, McCulloch, goat, and myself if I may be so bold (and I apologize if I left anyone out).

The way it has "always been done" is that children are raised by the father and mother who created them. Again, if you want your analogy to slavery to hold, you must declare the practice of heterosexual parenting to be as horrific to slavery. Otherwise, this is inconsistent. I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

So, by the definition that children have "always" been raised by the father and mother who created them, does this mean that you would also seek to remove adoptive rights from everyone else since none of the potential suitors will be the child's biological parents?

And, again, I am not comparing heterosexual (or any form) of parenting to slavery. I am showing how "that's the way it always has been" does not justify a practice, no matter how long or often it has been practiced (slavery spanned not just generations but centuries and millennium).

[micatala]

While I understand that you feel strongly that we would be forcing something on foster children against their wishes, I will need to see something more concrete that demonstrates that the majority of foster children would be opposed to such an arrangement.

Never claimed that the majority of foster children would be aganist such an arrangement. My claim is that the foster child should be able to choose for him or herself (at any age when it is possible to voice their opinions) the family he or she wishes to go to. Some may wish to go with gays, thats fine, some may wish not to, thats fine.I have no clue what the majority of foster children prefer, nor do I claim to know.

I have asked repeatedly whether it would be OK to allow children to veto adoptions for other reasons as well, or are we only going to single out gays?

Would it be OK for a child to veto an adoption on the basis of

race
ethnicity
disability of one of the parents
occupation
religious affiliation
etc.

If we do not allow child choice, except in the case of sexual orientation, then we have a human rights issue plain and simple.

I think that children who are not of the age of consent have about as much say in whom they go home with as they would in any other decision of that magnitude - meaning their wants would be taken into consideration, but ultimately the decision is going to be made at a higher level the same as it would in any other adoption.

Well, we disagree on this. The ultimate decision should not come from a "higher level" who sees gay rights as more important to the individuality of children. The ultimate decision should come from the child.

See above.

I am sure the reviewers of the studies presented do not agree with you about the studies inconclusiveness pertaining to the ability of homosexual parents to be as successful parents as heterosexual parents, otherwise those studies would not have been published in the highly regarded publications that they were.

Granted, I have glanced at the links that micatala has posted and not read them fully, but I have yet to see the factors that shows us how the parents homosexuality leads to better development of the child. Perhaps you and others can post the benefits of homosexual parenting in your words.

Why better? I believe the main point is there is no evidence showing that gays are less able to parent children than others. If you are going to exclude a whole class of people, the burden is on those wishing to do the exclusion to show that gays are unfit in general to be parents. THis evidence has to be truly overwhelming, since each person or couple hoping to adopt is approved on a case by case basis anyway. If even some gays are shown to be fit parents, why exclude all gays? Why not just let the screening process work?

You made the argument that there needed to strong justification to change the status quo, because that was the way things have been done for eons (paraphrasing).

Yes, thats basically right.

THere is a strong justification. The constitution and related documents clearly indicate one of the chief purposes of government is to protect liberty and equal treatment under the law.

A blanket ban on gays adopting violates these principles.

Yes, we balance that with the needs of the child but there is no evidence that allowing gays to adopt presents any danger in this respect .

Thus, when there is no other side to worry about balancing against, you go with the stated purpose of preserving liberty and equal treatment.

My response was to tell you that just because it has been done that way for eons, does not mean it is a good or healthy policy - slavery being one example.

This analogy would only hold if you will also contend that the preservation of the nuclear family is also bad and equatable with slavery.

Bad analogy. Allowing gay adoption does not necessarily have any significant impact on the nuclear family. The kids are up for adoption in the first place because they don't have a nuclear family, or the one they have has been deemed so disfunctional as to merit its dissolution.

You were not comparing homosexual marriage to slavery, but you were saying basically "that's the way it's always been done" which in itself is not necessarily a good enough reason, especially with the mass amounts of justification otherwise provided by posters such as micatala, McCulloch, goat, and myself if I may be so bold (and I apologize if I left anyone out).

The way it has "always been done" is that children are raised by the father and mother who created them. Again, if you want your analogy to slavery to hold, you must declare the practice of heterosexual parenting to be as horrific to slavery. Otherwise, this is inconsistent. I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

Your comments concerning the analogy again miss the point. The purpose of the analogy is to show that tradition is not always good.

If you don't like that analogy, how about the traditions of not allowing women to vote, or hold property, or decide who their husbands would be. These have all been the dominant traditions in western civilization for centuries, and have only significantly changed within the last 150 years.

Also, your argument ignores that there have always been exceptions to the nuclear family, and that when we are talking about adoption, we are already talking about situations in which the nuclear family has in some way broken down or been lost. There have existed orphans and orphanages. There have existed godparents and adoptive parents, often not related.



The question is, in a situation where a child requires adoption because his birth family does not exist or is not functioning, should gays be allowed to serve as adoptive parents?


Fairness and the evidence clearly indicate the answer is yes.