Author Topic: Arguments against homosexual adoption?  (Read 10343 times)

Mulliga

  • New Member
  • Posts: 17
Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« on: February 11, 2007, 06:10:50 AM »
I'm posting here because I think I'll get a more objective response. Some simple Googling has already led to some "research," but it's invariably slanted to either one side or the other. So, aside from "It's immoral" or "It's unnatural," what are some objective, rational arguments against allowing gay people to adopt?

Laurent du Var

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 719
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2007, 06:27:23 AM »
 - " what are some objective, rational arguments against allowing gay people to adopt? "

They didn' try hard enough to get pregnant ?
Vada a bordo, Cazzo!

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2007, 07:25:29 AM »
I would suggest one concern for people that doesn't revolve around the sexual orientation may be the lack of a role model of the same or opposite sex.

I'm not sure what the research on same-sex couples shows, if just having two involved parents outweighs the lack of symmetry, but I think it is fairly well settled that kids in single parent households lacking fathers show consequences of such a lack in cases where, for example, an uncle, grandfather or other consistant male role model isn't available to "fill in".  I'm sure there are similar studies on lack of a mother.

Not that the kids of single parents are by definition screwed, but that there is a greater chance for predictible behavioral and psychological consequences.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2007, 08:13:42 AM »
but I think it is fairly well settled that kids in single parent households lacking fathers show consequences of such a lack in cases where, for example, an uncle, grandfather or other consistant male role model isn't available to "fill in".  I'm sure there are similar studies on lack of a mother.

Not that the kids of single parents are by definition screwed, but that there is a greater chance for predictible behavioral and psychological consequences.

Less so than if they're in a two-parent household where, say, the father is a violent alcoholic or the mother is a coke-snorting bum, or the parents despise each other and fight continually. I think far more damage is done by that sort of thing, which is why I tend to lose patience with the "MUST HAVE TWO PARENTS" extremists.

To me, the ideal household is one in which the parent or parents loves the kid and puts the kid's welfare above their own, and gives them valuable life lessons. I could care less what the household "looks like" as long as it does that, and I can't fathom why anyone else would, either.

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2007, 08:24:28 AM »
but I think it is fairly well settled that kids in single parent households lacking fathers show consequences of such a lack in cases where, for example, an uncle, grandfather or other consistant male role model isn't available to "fill in".  I'm sure there are similar studies on lack of a mother.

Not that the kids of single parents are by definition screwed, but that there is a greater chance for predictible behavioral and psychological consequences.

Less so than if they're in a two-parent household where, say, the father is a violent alcoholic or the mother is a coke-snorting bum, or the parents despise each other and fight continually. I think far more damage is done by that sort of thing, which is why I tend to lose patience with the "MUST HAVE TWO PARENTS" extremists.

To me, the ideal household is one in which the parent or parents loves the kid and puts the kid's welfare above their own, and gives them valuable life lessons. I could care less what the household "looks like" as long as it does that, and I can't fathom why anyone else would, either.

Well yeah, two good parents trump two bad ones, one good parent trumps two bad ones, but that is apples and oranges.

The question is what rational concerns could possibly exist between adoption by two good hetero parents and two good homo parents assuming those concerns aren't based on a personal pronblem with homosexuality.

My point was that even in a good two parent homo couple there is a lack of one sex role model versus the same good couple that is hetero and that to some folks that may be a non-biased, rational, legitimate concern.  apples to apples
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2007, 08:36:22 AM »
It legitimates a decadent devient lifestyle and tends to perpertuate same.  While there are any number of less than optimum straight parents, no one would suggest they should also be allowed to adopt kids.  The argument that "we already have X which is undesirable so why is this worse" is a loser of an argument.  You dont improve bad situations by making them worse.

And Laurent, I love your new sig line.  But now quote the rest of what I wrote.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2007, 08:44:05 AM »
It legitimates a decadent devient lifestyle and tends to perpertuate same. 

Woah, way to stereotype. I guess you don't have any gay friends..I know some who are completely and utterly BORING. They'll even admit that their "wild lifestyle" consists of coming home from work, watching TV and falling asleep. Oh, yeah, and one likes scrapbooking.

That's just...way off from reality.

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2007, 08:46:34 AM »
Just because something is decadent and deviant does not mean it can't also be boring.  Those words are not contradictory.

He isn't saying all homosexuals are livin' la vida loca.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2007, 09:39:56 AM »
A kid that grows up in a same-sex union will be even more messed-up than one in dysfunctional heterosexual families. Like it or not, youngsters learn by example and spend most of their semi-sentient years doing enormous amount of ingraining by imitating adults.

I do not believe "decadent/deviant" is a good con-argument either. Decadence/deviance implies choice; most homosexuals don't have one. If there is something "decadent/deviant", it is the Rosey-O'Donnell liberal perspective that homosexuality is something natural and of equal value or validity as  heterosexuality. Homosexuality is no more natural (or decadent/deviant for that matter) than any other congenital deformity.

Mannlicher

  • Grumpy Old Gator
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,435
  • The Bonnie Blue
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2007, 11:22:05 AM »
Why do you feel you have to justify being against homo adoption?  Bottom line is, its just not right.  cheesy

Laurent du Var

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 719
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2007, 11:30:54 AM »
The ideal would be a man and a woman conceiving, giving birth and raising
their children in an oldfashioned way. Becouse of divorce and recomposed families that chance is getting smaller and smaller. But we should still aspire to that ideal.
The next best solution if one must have children for whatever reason is adoption;
Adoption means a third party needs to decide wether you're fit to raise a child or not.
There is a choice to make : A traditionnal couple or the gay couple because I don't think there are that many children availlabel for adoption unless your name is Madonna, Stone or Jolie.  Also I think we're talking mostly about gay men, since lesbian couples seem to have ways to get pregnant these days, which for me is no problem at all.

Last I'd say dead parents or bad parents if they had a word to say about who's adopting their kids, I doubt the choice would fall on the gay couple, but that's just my 2 cents.

Rabbi, I loved your old sig line, I'd rather fight the ventilator than being bombed....   

 
Vada a bordo, Cazzo!

mountainclmbr

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Sunset, Casa Mountainclmbr
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2007, 11:52:59 AM »
I can see where it would not be a good idea to let NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assoc.) members adopt little boys. But, not really different than letting a straight male pedophile adopt a little girl. Homosexual adoption would not be my first choice, but probably better in many cases than much of the foster care shuffling that goes on.
Just say no to Obama, Osama and Chelsea's mama.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2007, 05:01:33 PM »
i can safely say i more often than not disagree with maned wolf  but he sure hit the nail on this one. i work with kids and know sevrasl from gay parents that were straight and several from straight paerents that were not. i know a gay couple and have talked with the one lady at length about kids and she said she always wanted to raise a son.  and she'd raise a fine one  . there are many gay folks who would and do make awesome parents as there are many straight couples shouldn't have goldfish

Stand_watie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,925
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2007, 06:07:52 PM »
I'm not going to present this as an "Argument against homosexual adoption", but as an "argument that, all other character issues of the involved parties being equal, a male/female parental situation is the better of the two".

Quote
I would suggest one concern for people that doesn't revolve around the sexual orientation may be the lack of a role model of the same or opposite sex.

I'll + one carebear's comment, but I think child/parental learning is (or should be) deeper than "role model" implies. I don't buy into Freud wholeheartedly, but he definitely exposed large veins of gold in his theories on parental influence on psyche. Taking one gender or the other out of the equation is a deficit to the child.

I'll repeat myself in the futile hope that it will prevent the response of "well straight people are bad too" - "..all other character issues of the involved parties being equal.."

Yizkor. Lo Od Pa'am

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

"Never again"

"Malone Labe"

Ezekiel

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Intellectual Masturbationist
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2007, 05:37:21 AM »
Quote
what are some objective, rational arguments against allowing gay people to adopt?

Not really aware of any, unless you're an uber-closeted homophobe.

"Kids need folks that love them."

Seems pretty simple, no?
Zeke

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,153
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2007, 05:41:52 AM »
- " what are some objective, rational arguments against allowing gay people to adopt? "

They didn' try hard enough to get pregnant ?

  smiley

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2007, 05:50:06 AM »
i can safely say i more often than not disagree with maned wolf  but he sure hit the nail on this one. i work with kids and know sevrasl from gay parents that were straight and several from straight paerents that were not. i know a gay couple and have talked with the one lady at length about kids and she said she always wanted to raise a son.  and she'd raise a fine one  . there are many gay folks who would and do make awesome parents as there are many straight couples shouldn't have goldfish

On this issue, I'd go so far as to say that anyone who wants GOVERNMENT to mandate anything to do with anyone's sexual orientation or government legislation restricting their suitability as a parent if they've not committed any crime? Well, that sort can only be labeled by one label...big-government, meddling LEFTIST.

The same argument HAS been used by leftists to suggest that those who "like guns" are a danger to children, remember? Remember all the statistics they keep spewing that the kids are more likely to get shot by accident, be more violent, all that garbage? See how the arguments against this fit exactly the same way, with the same flawed premises?

You can't be selective in what you want the Big Government bludgeon to be used for, just things you don't like, and still claim to be a conservative...'cause anyone who does that isn't, and needs to take a long look in the mirror, and realize what they're asking for.

Once you let that dog off its leash and try to sic it on what you personally don't like, it's loose, and it'll eventually come bite your a** too.



mfree

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,637
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2007, 05:52:55 AM »
To hell with their sexual orientation or genders.

Are they (a) stable enough to perform long term parenting and (b) in and amongst themselves good parents?

AND(A,B)=ADOPTION(BOOLEAN)

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,153
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2007, 06:26:03 AM »
So, aside from "It's immoral" or "It's unnatural," what are some objective, rational arguments against allowing gay people to adopt?

Are those two reasons insufficient or non-rational? 

RE: "It's immoral"

I don't favor a nanny-state in charge of teaching us all good morals, but when govt. is directly responsible for the welfare of children (as is the case with adoption), it has to be a nanny.  Is there a point at which standards for adoption must make moral distinctions?  Or can apparent moral standards be viewed as a value-neutral concern for the well-being of the child?  For example, would or should state adoption guidelines rule out homes where there the heterosexual parents are open about having multiple sexual partners or viewing/making pornography?  What if the parents are law-abiding people who advocate for drug legalization or work to implement sharia (Islamic) law in America?     

RE: "It's unnatural" 

Well, there's a sense in which we can all agree that it is unnatural and another sense in which we can agree that it isn't.  Insofar as it is not the usual way that the sexes relate to one another socially or biologically, wouldn't "it's unnatural" be a reasonable argument against homosexual adoption?   For the same reasons as above? 


Quote from: ManedWolf
Once you let that dog off its leash and try to sic it on what you personally don't like, it's loose, and it'll eventually come bite your a** too.
Understand that you are misrepresenting the opposing argument.  No one has opposed homosexual adoption because they don't like it, but because they believe it to be morally wrong by an objective standard or because they believe it is objectively harmful to children.  There's no like or dislike involved. 

Is there a right to adopt, regardless what others think of your behavior? 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,153
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2007, 06:48:34 AM »
To hell with their sexual orientation or genders.

Are they (a) stable enough to perform long term parenting and (b) in and amongst themselves good parents?

AND(A,B)=ADOPTION(BOOLEAN)

But does homosexuality inherently disqualify them from a or b?  That's one of the biggest questions here, but you assume it to be a non-issue.  This doesn't get us any closer to an answer. 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

BrokenPaw

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,674
  • Sedit qvi timvit ne non svccederet.
    • ShadowGrove Interpath Ministry
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2007, 07:19:32 AM »
Quote from: Fistful
Is there a right to adopt, regardless what others think of your behavior?
There is not.  However, there is the right to be considered as a coequal candidate for adoption.  The debate here is whether homosexuality, in and of itself, is a valid reason for disqualifying someone out of hand for such candidacy.

Either homosexuality is a choice, or it is not.  Certainly homosexual behavior is a choice, just as heterosexual behavior is (before anyone jumps on this to tell me that it's not a choice, it's the Way of Nature, answer this question:  Have you ever had sexual attraction to someone of the opposite sex, but not acted upon it?  If so, you made a choice.  Your orientation caused you to have a desire, and your intellect chose not to pursue it).  But so far the evidence is that the actual orientation itself is not generally chosen. 

Earlier in the thread, CAnnoneer referred to homosexuality as "no more natural (or decadent/deviant for that matter) than any other congenital deformity."   While I consider his views on this to be unnecessarily repugnant, let's take a look at it from this perspective:  If homosexuality is a congenital deformity, then it is absolutely not a choice. 

Further, if we should refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt under the notion that they are congenitally deformed, it would therefore also be necessary to exclude any and all people who have other deformities as well.  How could a woman with only one hand be a good mother, after all?  It's fairly obvious that anyone who is not of purest genealogical stock should not be given the opportunity to raise a child. 

Oh, wait, if homosexuality is a congenital defect, then there's...(counting on fingers)...zero chance of it "infecting" a child.  Just like a woman missing a hand will not cause an adopted child to grow a stump.  Oops.

So now we're left with behavior.  It can be argued up and down and left and right that homosexual behavior is either wrong or not wrong.  But apart from the fact that it involves either two "innies" or two "outies", there is no deviance that a homosexual couple can get up to that a straight couple cannot. 

What a couple does in the bedroom behind closed doors is something that should not be a part of a young child's realm of knowledge.  If it is part of the child's knowledge, then Mom and Dad, or Mom and Mom, or Dad and Dad aren't being discreet, and their orientation bears upon that...not at all.

If we can assume for the sake of argument that a gay couple would be as discreet as the model straight couple everyone wants to adopt Little Molly (as Stand_watie said, "all other character issues of the involved parties being equal"), then we're down to an argument of choices.

Which of these choices should the government use as a touchstone for whether a couple is fit to be adoptive parents:
Whether they choose to own guns?
Whether they choose to go to a particular church?
Whether they choose to support the correct political party?

None of these are valid governmental reasons for granting or dismissing a petition for adoption.  Why?  Because none of them (other than in a purely subjective sense) reflect upon how well they will raise the child.

Whether they choose to love someone who happens to have similar plumbing?

Again, not valid.  Because (again, as Stand_watie said, "all other character issues of the involved parties being equal") there is nothing but a subjective indication that such a couple would be inadequate parents.

Anything that a gay couple can do, any perversion of wit or behavior or environment, can also be visited upon a child by a straight couple.  So the only question that should remain is:

Does this couple have a loving home, and the committed intent to share that loving home with the child they wish to adopt?

If the answer is "yes", then color (not a choice), orientation (not a choice), religion (a choice outside the realm of government control), philosophy (a choice outside the realm of government control), partnership (a choice outside the realm of government control)...none of these should matter.

-BP
Seek out wisdom in books, rare manuscripts, and cryptic poems if you will, but seek it also in simple stones and fragile herbs and in the cries of wild birds. Listen to the song of the wind and the roar of water if you would discover magic, for it is here that the old secrets are still preserved.

Antibubba

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,836
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2007, 07:41:51 AM »
Would 1 mother and 1 father be the ideal?  Sure.  But let's not forget how many orphaned and unwanted are being shuttled through our foster care system.  Not all of them are cute, cuddly, or even babies-but all of them would do much better in homes where they are wanted.  Some would argue about gay adoption being too risky, but we've already seen the damage caused by not being wanted.  I'm willing to risk two daddies.

Also, this talk of not having enough of one gender's influence is crap.  Grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers-all can be good role models. Long before gay or women's rights a lot of people grew up without a mother or father.
If life gives you melons, you may be dyslexic.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2007, 07:45:42 AM »
Quote
Understand that you are misrepresenting the opposing argument.  No one has opposed homosexual adoption because they don't like it, but because they believe it to be morally wrong by an objective standard or because they believe it is objectively harmful to children.  There's no like or dislike involved.

Fistful, that's still the same argument the anti-gun sorts use. They think guns are inhererently EVIL, remember? They argue that having them around is harmful to children, etc, etc...

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2007, 08:01:30 AM »
Quote from: BrokenPaw
Earlier in the thread, CAnnoneer referred to homosexuality as "no more natural (or decadent/deviant for that matter) than any other congenital deformity."   While I consider his views on this to be unnecessarily repugnant,

I don't see how it can be "repugnant". Subjective attitudes can be. Objective facts cannot be. Most homosexuals have the misfortune of being born with bodies and brains of opposing gender and there is established anatomical and physiological evidence of that. Please explain why such a mismatch is not a congenital deformity.

Quote

Further, if we should refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt under the notion that they are congenitally deformed, it would therefore also be necessary to exclude any and all people who have other deformities as well. 

I already considered that counterargument but waited for somebody to state it before moving the discussion in that direction.

If the particular deformity is irrelevant to the particular task, then there are no problems. For example, Hawking makes a great scientist although having vanishing muscle control. Should he be allowed to be a rifleman in the USMC? Similarly, a deformed extremity will have very little influence on parenting capabilities. However, a deformed sexuality likely will have negative effects on the psychological development of a child because sexuality is such a major, deep-rooted part of a person's psychology. And that is what, IMO, disqualifies homosexual couples.


Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,153
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Arguments against homosexual adoption?
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2007, 08:09:50 AM »
But so far the evidence is that the actual orientation itself is not generally chosen. 

If you mean a homosexual orientation, that would be merely your opinion.  The evidence for genetic determination is inconclusive, at best.  But let's presume you are correct.  It would still be reductionist to claim that all "congenital defects" are equal.  So, whether you would agree or not, there is still room to make a case that some abnormalities should disqualify one for adoption, and some should not. 


Quote
Anything that a gay couple can do, any perversion of wit or behavior or environment, can also be visited upon a child by a straight couple.
Except raising them in a homosexual household.  Like I told mfree, you can't argue for your position by simply saying that same-sex parents won't be a significant problem.  That's the point at issue, isn't it?  It's a logical fallacy called question-begging.  You argue that the parents just need to keep sex in the bedroom and it won't be an issue.  But we're not discussing whether parents have sex on the kitchen table, the issue is whether they are the same sex and how this may affect the household in general.   


You also falsely compare unknown problems in the heterosexual home (any perversion of wit or behavior or environment) with a known factor of the homosexual household. 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson