Arguments against homosexual adoption?

[Perd Hapley]

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...

So?  Perhaps you don't understand my point.  The anti-HA side has made arguments based on a) the well-being of the adoptee and/or b) an objective, moral standard.  But instead of responding to these arguments, you very cheaply and baselessly accuse them of some capricious insistence on their own personal preferences.  That is a straw man.  It so happens that some of us believe in transcendent moral codes that have nothing to do with what we like.  I'd love to be neutral on the issue of homosexuality, it would be so much easier, but the truth gets in the way of that.  It also happens that some (not me) don't care what Steve and Jimmy do in their bedroom, but DO think it would be harmful for a kid to be raised in such a home.

[BrokenPaw]

Fistful,

The problem with "an objective, moral standard" is that the morals behind the standard are intrinsically subjective.

If someone's morals are based upon the teachings of the Catholic church, you have an objective moral standard that differs from the teachings of the Qu'ran, which offers an objective moral standard that differs from the teachings of Talmudic law, which offers an objective moral standard that differs from the teachings in the Sikh temple, which offers....ad infinitum.

There is no objective moral standard.  There are as many moral standards as there are belief systems in the world. 

Like I told mfree, you can't argue for your position by simply saying that same-sex parents won't be a significant problem.

Conversely, you can't argue for your position by simply saying that same-sex parents will be a significant problem.  Because the will/will not question hinges upon the moral standard, and so your position is only supportable if your moral standard is the correct one. 

Whose divinely-inspired and therefore inarguably correct moral standard shall we use for the remainder of this debate?  The Talmud?  Sharia?  The Wiccan Rede? The Golden Rule?  "Be excellent to each other"? 

Whose "objective" moral standard is the right one?

-BP

[CAnnoneer]

Manedwolf, I can see the parallel you are trying to establish, but the details involved are very different.

In adoption, the gov has been given custody of children and thus has associated responsibilities for their welfare. Thus gov has the right and obligation to screen potential adopters in accordance with welfare consideration. Therefore, exclusion of homosexuals can be done on that basis.

In lesbian biological parenthood, the gov has no custody of the child at any stage and so the adoption question is moot.

In gun control, the gov does not possess the guns in the first place while 2A guarantees gunownership. So, gun control is undeniably illegal.

BrokenPaw, fistful has the right to have his opinion be religiously motivated. Also, the secular con-argument can and does state that homosexuality would be damaging to the child's psychological health.

[BrokenPaw]

BrokenPaw, fistful has the right to have his opinion be religiously motivated. Also, the secular con-argument can and does state that homosexuality would be damaging to the child's psychological health.

The secular con argument may very well state that.  But how compelling is the evidence, and upon what standard is it based?

Fistful and I rarely agree, but I would like to think he understands that I am not telling him he does not have the right for his opinion to be religiously motivated.  And I didn't even touch upon that.  Fistful may have any and every opinion fistful wants to have, and I will fight for his right to have them.  I imagine that he feels the same about me; my opinions are not his, but he supports my right to have them.

But we're not talking about fistful's opinion.  We're talking about the government having an opinion.  And the government's opinion cannot be determined by fistful's opinion.  Or mine.  Or yours.  The government's opinion can only be determined by objective fact, or it has no legitimacy at all.  And I was pointing out that an "objective moral standard" is not actually objective, and thus cannot be the basis for governmental policy.

Since this is an issue that intrinsically cannot be decided on the basis of fact, it is tenuous at best to suggest that we should allow the government anywhere near the subject.

-BP

[Perd Hapley]

Broken One,

I was not really arguing against HA, just criticizing the arguments of the other side.  I'll also criticize weak arguments for my own position when I see them and if I get to it.  The point is that a person's view of morality cannot simply be dismissed as personal dislike.  And as you point out, I can't argue that homosexual adoption is wrong just because it's wrong.  And you can't argue that the homosexuality of parents won't matter because it won't matter.  Either point needs more to back it up.

[richyoung]

Fistful and I rarely agree, but I would like to think he understands that I am not telling him he does not have the right for his opinion to be religiously motivated.  And I didn't even touch upon that.  Fistful may have any and every opinion fistful wants to have, and I will fight for his right to have them.  I imagine that he feels the same about me; my opinions are not his, but he supports my right to have them.

But we're not talking about fistful's opinion.  We're talking about the government having an opinion.  And the government's opinion cannot be determined by fistful's opinion.  Or mine.  Or yours. 

Slept through your American History classes?  Last time I checked, a representative democracy, or republic, is supposed to do JUST THAT - derive its opinion from fistfuls.  And yours.  And mine.  Collectively.  I seem to recall they are called "elections"...

The government's opinion can only be determined by objective fact, or it has no legitimacy at all.  And I was pointing out that an "objective moral standard" is not actually objective, and thus cannot be the basis for governmental policy.

Since this is an issue that intrinsically cannot be decided on the basis of fact, it is tenuous at best to suggest that we should allow the government anywhere near the subject.

-BP

So fistful can have an opinion - he just isn't allowed to act on it if its based in religion.  If its based on Dr. Spock, the Jane Fonda Workout, or anything BUT religion, then its OK?  Considering this country was founded as a Christion nation, that seems kind of funny to me....

[Perd Hapley]

Since this is an issue that intrinsically cannot be decided on the basis of fact, it is tenuous at best to suggest that we should allow the government anywhere near the subject.

So you would object to the govt. forcing adoption agencies to consider homosexual applicants?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/15/no_penalty_for_catholic_adoption_agencies_refusing_gay_applicants/

And I was pointing out that an "objective moral standard" is not actually objective, and thus cannot be the basis for governmental policy.

Is this statement based in fact or is it a moral statement?  How do you prove from fact that govt. policy should not be determined by subjective morality?  The point is not whether my morality is subjective or objective.  If you reread me, you'll find that I have never stated that HA should be disallowed merely for moral reasons.  The point is that people such as Maned Wolf should not get away with painting honest moral belief as mere preference, yet it happens all the time.  The anti-gun version of this is to say, "You just don't like being told what guns you can or cannot buy, no matter who gets killed."  This reduces the pro-gun position to a mere selfish desire to have toys.  It's not a fair or a valid way to argue.  Even if you disagree with the anti-HA position, recognize the possibility that your opponent has the interests of children at heart and not his own, no matter how misguided you may think him to be. 

[BrokenPaw]

I'll also criticize weak arguments for my own position when I see them and if I get to it.

I knew there was a reason I liked you.  I do this too.

Slept through your American History classes?  Last time I checked, a representative democracy, or republic, is supposed to do JUST THAT - derive its opinion from fistfuls.  And yours.  And mine.  Collectively.  I seem to recall they are called "elections"...

Goodness, I'm glad someone came along to point out how the majority's opinion is inherently the correct one.   

So fistful can have an opinion - he just isn't allowed to act on it if its based in religion.  If its based on Dr. Spock, the Jane Fonda Workout, or anything BUT religion, then its OK?  Considering this country was founded as a Christion nation, that seems kind of funny to me....

Er...no.  Fistful can have an opinion.  And he can act upon it whether he got it from the Bible, or Doctor Spock, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  But not if he got it from Jane Fonda, because that would be wrong.   

I'm not going to help drift the thread into (yet another) debate about whether this is a Christian nation or not.  But I will point out that you can't have it both ways, Rich.  When the majority goes against your beliefs, you haul out the "Christian Nation" canard, and when the majority agrees with you, you point at the "Collective Opinion" argument.  Which is it?  Is this a Christian nation, or is it a nation governed by collective opinion?

-BP

(I have to assume that, as an anion carries negative charge, and a cation carries positive charge, a Christion carries righteousness.  )

 

[BrokenPaw]

So you would object to the govt. forcing adoption agencies to consider homosexual applicants?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/15/no_penalty_for_catholic_adoption_agencies_refusing_gay_applicants/

Absolutely I would object to the government forcing private adoption agencies to consider candidates that did not meet the agencies' criteria.  I would not expect a catholic agency to allow a gay couple to adopt, any more than I would expect a catholic church to marry a gay couple.  And for the government to try to force them to would be abhorrently wrong.

Is this statement based in fact or is it a moral statement?  How do you prove from fact that govt. policy should not be determined by subjective morality?  The point is not whether my morality is subjective or objective.  If you reread me, you'll find that I have never stated that HA should be disallowed merely for moral reasons.  The point is that people such as Maned Wolf should not get away with painting honest moral belief as mere preference, yet it happens all the time.  The anti-gun version of this is to say, "You just don't like being told what guns you can or cannot buy, no matter who gets killed."  This reduces the pro-gun position to a mere selfish desire to have toys.  It's not a fair or a valid way to argue.  Even if you disagree with the anti-HA position, recognize the possibility that your opponent has the interests of children at heart and not his own, no matter how misguided you may think him to be.

I think that giving the government extra power to rule over people's lives based upon the opinion of other people is a dangerous road to tread.

Government's power should (and must be) limited to protecting the rights of people from the infringement another person would inflict upon them.  So for the government to have valid jurisdiction in this adoption debate, it would have to be demonstrated that adoption by a gay couple infringes on the inalienable rights of the child. 

And unless and until we can prove that gay couples are harmful, objectively, then we can't definitively say that the child's rights are being infringed.  Worse, it's likely that a stable gay couple would be less harmful to a child's rights than (as others have pointed out) the foster care system.

-BP

[Jamisjockey]

The Golden Rule?

Ok, I must establish a debate ground rule....here and now.....
We CANNOT apply the golden rule to homosexuality in this forum again....
"do onto others as you would have done unto you"......

Oh, Steve....do unto me again! Again!

..........sorry, couldn't resist.....

[cordex]

Without addressing the root issue here ...

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...

Manedwolf ... can you name for me a single political position that prohibits or requires something that is not based on defining something as inherently evil or wrong?  At some point you define something as good (freedom, life, prosperity, whatever) and you attempt to structure laws around punishing those who threaten that which you are defending (slavery, murder, theft, whatever).

You are making an awfully weak argument in drawing that amazingly tenuous connection between anti-gun and anti-homosexual adoption advocates.  "They both think something is evil, so they're both wrong!"

Is tyranny bad?  Is slavery evil?  Is government oppression wrong?   If you answered yes to any of those questions, are you making anti-gun type arguments?

[Perd Hapley]

I have to assume that, as an anion carries negative charge, and a cation carries positive charge, a Christion carries righteousness.

That's why we're better than you pagions.    What kind of charge do you guys have anyway? 

[CAnnoneer]

BrokenPaw,

Now I understand your position far better. Thanks for the clarification. The original had very different connotations as I perceived them. To make a more effective argument, you might want to approach it from the direction of a secular government making secular decisions, i.e. separation of church and state. Thus fistful is free to form his opinions based on his religious convictions but a secular government has no religion and thus must form opinions based on something else. That approach also takes care of any contradictions that might exist between faiths in terms of government decisions.

richyoung,

What you are describing is a true democracy, which unfortunately is equivalent to bolshevism. Thankfully, our form of government is a constitutional secular republic that is set up specifically to make certain the majority does not dictate over the minority, at least on the most fundamental issues, at least in principle. Also, the founding fathers being Christian in no way should be used as a basis for preferential reference to christian viewpoints in gov policy, just as them being slaveowners does not add any more credibility to KKK, or them being white to supremacist ideals. I'd like to believe our constitution transcends religious and racial boundaries, if not by intent then by effect.

[BrokenPaw]

That's why we're better than you pagions. What kind of charge do you guys have anyway?

  Well, duh, we have the Charge of the Goddess.[1]

I figured that would be more or less self-explanatory...   

CAnnoneer,

Thanks.  I usually do take the "secular government, secular decisions" position (if you've ever read any of my soapboxing on the subject of gay marriage, you'll have seen that).

Mostly I want the government out of the meddling business. 

-BP

 [1] Yes, yes, I know, this is technically only for Wiccions.

[Perd Hapley]

BrokenPaw,

I agree with much of what you said in posts 32 and 33.  "Christian nation" is one of those phrases that has various meanings and various implications.  It should be used carefully and I don't think rich was very careful. 

I think private groups should have latitude to do as they deem best for children, but it seems government must have some oversight in this.  I can't see how govt. can escape making "moral judgements." 

As I asked earlier:
  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 openly admit to 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?

What exactly is harmful to children?  Sure, some will want to ban religious people or gun owners from adopting, but we have to decide what the standard will be. 

[Perd Hapley]

We must ban all religions whose names cannot fit into the ion joke. 

Approved:
Christions
Pagions
Wiccions
Mormions
Zoroastrions
Presbyterions, if they agree to pay a special tax. 

Banned:
Muslims
Buddhists
Hindus
Bahai
Atheists
Agnostics
Rosicrucians
And Scientologists, thank goodness they didn't meet the test. 

[BrokenPaw]

Fistful, I think you've hit upon something with your religions list.  But you miscategorized Rosicrucions.

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 openly admit to 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?

This is a difficult question, but my answer to it would be similar to my answer to the gay marriage question:  Let individual groups decide the criteria they will have.  Just as a gay couple would not (or should not) expect to marry in the Catholic church, so also they should not expect to be able to adopt from a Catholic adoption agency.  But there should be no governmental prohibition on them going to another organization, with different beliefs, in order to be joined, or (in this case) to adopt.

But placing arbitrary limits on who is a "fit" parent gets very ugly very quickly.  Do we rule out people who make porn?  On what grounds, if they go off to work every day and then come home and take care of the kids well, what difference does it make?  If they watch porn?  Well, that rules out a heck of a lot more people than a ban on gay adoption.  If the parents are law-abiding but are working to implement more or less any policy change they like, there's no reason (absent other problems) to prohibit.  If they work to implement sharia, they can adopt from a Muslim adoption agency...

My basic premise is this:  I have yet to see a government program designed to protect me from myself that did not, in the end, both cost me money and cause more harm than good.

-BP

[richyoung]

I'll also criticize weak arguments for my own position when I see them and if I get to it.

I knew there was a reason I liked you.  I do this too.

Slept through your American History classes?  Last time I checked, a representative democracy, or republic, is supposed to do JUST THAT - derive its opinion from fistfuls.  And yours.  And mine.  Collectively.  I seem to recall they are called "elections"...

Goodness, I'm glad someone came along to point out how the majority's opinion is inherently the correct one.   

...thats kind of the definition of democracy - the majority opinion may not be the correct one, but it is likely to be the one implimented eventually.  Got some other system?

I'm not going to help drift the thread into (yet another) debate about whether this is a Christian nation or not.  But I will point out that you can't have it both ways, Rich.  When the majority goes against your beliefs, you haul out the "Christian Nation" canard, and when the majority agrees with you, you point at the "Collective Opinion" argument.  Which is it?  Is this a Christian nation, or is it a nation governed by collective opinion?

"canard" implies deliberate falsehood.  If I'm mistaken as to the character of this nation, then I've been mislead by the ones who founded it - almost all of whome refered to it as a "Christian Nation".  What else could it be?  Do you seriously contend that "Freedom of Religion" extends to human sacrifice?  After all, worshipers of Ba'al, the Carthaginians, the Aztecs, the Incas, some Native Americans - all practiced it, all were known to the FF...  As to the rest, ...used to be a constitutionally limited republic.  Ah, those were the days!  Lincoln was the first to yank us off that path, and FDR pretty much stuck a fork in that concept.

(I have to assume that, as an anion carries negative charge, and a cation carries positive charge, a Christion carries righteousness.  )

Yep.. Kant tipe....

[Perd Hapley]

Very well.  The Rosicrucions will not be banned, but they will not be allowed to adopt.   

Cordex's post on morality in law was excellent.

But placing arbitrary limits on who is a "fit" parent gets very ugly very quickly.  Do we rule out people who make porn?  On what grounds, if they go off to work every day and then come home and take care of the kids well, what difference does it make?  If they watch porn?  Well, that rules out a heck of a lot more people than a ban on gay adoption.  If the parents are law-abiding but are working to implement more or less any policy change they like, there's no reason (absent other problems) to prohibit.  If they work to implement sharia, they can adopt from a Muslim adoption agency...

I wouldn't prevent drug legalizers from adopting, so long as they were law-abiding.  Naturally, anyone at obvious risk of serving jail time wouldn't be a good adoptive parent.  The Sharia types I'm not sure about.  Anyone who's day to day business is to produce content that fits the legal definition of pornography, I would prevent from adoption as I believe it would be irresponsible to hand over a child to such people, no matter how nice some of them might be.  The same would go for any parent that lists pornography as one of his hobbies.  If porn is one of the major pursuits of your life, I'm not going to be responsible for giving you a kid.  You need help.  I'm afraid I would have to put homosexual couples in the same category. 

Now that's passing judgement on some people.  But what choice do we have?  Like I keep saying, when kids don't have any other legal guardian, they need a nanny state.  You may say that the homosexuality of the parents won't affect the kids.  I think it will. 

[Matthew Carberry]

fistful,

What part of Bah'aion doesn't work?

That's why we're better than you pagions.   What kind of charge do you guys have anyway? 

I don't know what it carries, but it is more powerful by moonlight and seems impeded by clothing.

[Antibubba]

We must ban all religions whose names cannot fit into the ion joke. 

Approved:
Christions
Pagions
Wiccions
Mormions
Zoroastrions
Presbyterions, if they agree to pay a special tax. 

Banned:
Muslims
Buddhists
Hindus
Bahai
Atheists
Agnostics
Rosicrucians
And Scientologists, thank goodness they didn't meet the test.

Fistful, I'm hurt!  How could you exclude the first one: Zionism??   

[richyoung]

richyoung,

What you are describing is a true democracy, which unfortunately is equivalent to bolshevism.

Uh,.... no.  Bolshevism is/was a branch of the Russian Communist Party, (or more properly, its anticedants). which was supposedly strictly democratic within itself; hardly a true democracy.

Thankfully, our form of government is a constitutional secular republic

Got to disagree with you about the secular.  You use the word as though it and theocratic were mutually exclusive polar opposites.  They are not.  While the United Sttates was not, and is not, a theocracy, it is also, (or at least, wasn't founded) as a secular nation.  Numerous quotes of the Founding Fathers reference the fact that not only is this to be a Christian nation, but that the form of government would fail with any other kind of citizens.  WHich seems apt, as we are now in the proces of failing....

that is set up specifically to make certain the majority does not dictate over the minority, at least on the most fundamental issues, at least in principle. Also, the founding fathers being Christian in no way should be used as a basis for preferential reference to christian viewpoints in gov policy,

...you mean like national holidays for Christ's birthday, for thanksgiving to the Lord, having "In God We Trust" on the money, chaplains for the armed services AND the Congress, swearing in on the Bible, etc, etc, etc?  If we are NOT a Christian nation, pray tell, what are we?  All the listed actions contraindicate secularism, and there is certainly no compelling evidence for Buhdism, Shintoism, paganism, the Moonies,...

just as them being slaveowners does not add any more credibility to KKK, or them being white to supremacist ideals. I'd like to believe our constitution transcends religious and racial boundaries, if not by intent then by effect.

The Constitution did not "transcend" religious and racial bounderies - it pushed them down to the state and lower levels.  Thats all it could do.

[brimic]

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. 
 
 
 

Itspretty blatantly obvious that you don't have kids.

[brimic]

Back to the original question...
It doesn't make sense to allow gay couples to adopt when there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of stable MARRIED heterosexual couples waiting to adopt.

[Matthew Carberry]

It doesn't make sense to allow gay couples to adopt when there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of stable MARRIED heterosexual couples waiting to adopt.

Is that a factual statement?  Not calling you a liar, but I've always been given to understand there was a lack of adoptive parents compared to the kids in foster care.

Or is it true for cute infants but not surly pre-teens?