I am not sure if there is a thread on this but after reading the thread Wesmorrisbabe started on gay couples and marriage it got me thinking; What about Gay couples adopting and how much autonomy childern get to exercise in that decision??

I have no qualms about anything from the Gay population or any gay person in general. Infact i know a few and they are quite nice and reserved people who are smart as they are humble. What i was thinking of was well when a Gay couple wants to adopt a child...(i know it is legal..i have seen it done)...does the adoption agency take into account the future effects such a fmaily will have on the child. As much as i would like to fart out butterflies i understand the real world and i know that a child would be ridiculed for having two mothers or two fathers...in school...in playgrounds...all the way up to college. I think it would be especially hard for a guy to have that information come out.

Should adoption agencies take those scenarios into account when processing Gay couples requests for adoption???...Does a child have a say in this if the child is fairly old??? Is it ok for the emotional wefare of the child???

Personally i have nothing against it but i know the world can be ignorant about this. What do you think???

Originally posted by sargentlard
What about Gay couples adopting and how much autonomy childern get to exercise in that decision??


What autonomy does any child have in picking his or her parrents?

Originally posted by Mystech
What autonomy does any child have in picking his or her parrents?


I think the kids do get a say in who gets to adopt them. Don't they report back to the adoption agency to tell if the are being abused or not?

Well, as far as child's opinion goes, nobody chooses their parents, right?
Since gay couples were allowed to adopt, I understand that adoption agencies have a more positive opinion ab such people than state governments. Glad to see that.
Gay couples aren't ridiculed as much as you think. Yes such a scenario does put a child into a weird position, but he will also feel weird with divorced and remarried parents. Also, in schools, he might be ridiculed/uncomfortable as a child with no poarents, which, I think, is worse.

think the kids do get a say in who gets to adopt them. Don't they report back to the adoption agency to tell if the are being abused or not?
No, there are case workers who follow up on each case. They visit the homes to see how adopted children are treated for a certain amt. of time.

sarge, stop getting scared every time i say i posted. it's a coldexchange of opinions. i'm usually not set on my opinion when i post.

Interesting...thank you for the replies....please futher elaborate if you wish.

Well this isn't exactly dead on topic, but it's related. . .

When an adoption agency tries to determine if a couple is fit to adopt a child, one of the things that they will take into account is criminal record, this is a big one. In states with anti-sodomy laws homosexuals are often rejected (or at least counted against) for the fact that it can be assumed they routinely engage in illegal sexual activity, and in their own orientations promote this illegal behavior, and as such can be seen as poor candidates for parenthood on those grounds.

Kind of a stupid reason if you ask me, rejecting a couple for adoption just because the state has outlawed intimacy.

Remember, Mystech, in Florida it's preferable to house children with convicted murderers and accused molesters (as long as they're heterosexual molesters) before you leave the kids in the presence of a lesbian.

As to the topic itself, I think the kids should get exactly as much say as they would otherwise in their adoption.

SargentLard, I'm curious why a gay potential parent is any different from a heterosexual potential parent. And as far as social factors (e.g. school) ... well? Because other people are determined to be stupid, a state should deny a child a good home? Rather, that's a facet of the issue in general that doesn't make sense to me.

And remember, statistically speaking the clear majority of sexual abuse I've known of among my friends when we were growing up was a father abusing a daughter. It would require a concerted effort for gay parents to set a lower standard than their heterosexual counterparts. I would be more wary about letting a hetero couple adopt a child. Based solely on statistics, that is.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

It should be allowed as long as the couple is
truely devoted the children. Homosexuals
are still sinners just as everyone, but that doesn't mean that they
cannot do good. I would be sort of concerned
about the influence. For example are the children
now more likely to be gay?

Than their parents... ?

Originally posted by okinrus
I would be sort of concerned
about the influence. For example are the children
now more likely to be gay?

Are children with straight parent’s less likely to be gay? I'd very much doubt it, though I must admit that a child with gay parents is probably more likely to accept who he is and not go into denial or into the closet as it were.

Going back to the topic of weather or not a child should be adopted by a gay couple do to the torment he may get from his peers: I feel that if homosexuals were ever denied an adoption based on this factor that people with really ugly haircuts should also be denied the privilege to adopt, after all children are likely to get made fun of for having a parent with ugly hair, too.

on the issue of the child being made fun of, keep in mind is also possible that children dont mock other children based on things like is their famliy wierd or not. Usualy a child is targeted for ridicule before anyone really knows anything solid about them, based on other critera entirly (Such as how many popular friends the kid has and if they seem like an easy target, are they physcialy capable of fighting back) and THEN the hunt for things to mock them about begins. Bullys dont mock because they really really think somone is weird, they do it because they have to to gain status.

Going back to the topic of weather or not a child should be adopted by a gay couple do to the torment he may get from his peers: I feel that if homosexuals were ever denied an adoption based on this factor that people with really ugly haircuts should also be denied the privilege to adopt, after all children are likely to get made fun of for having a parent with ugly hair, too.

Maybe it would be best for the biological parents to decide. Most christians would want their children adopted into christian family. Likewise some atheists would want their children adopted into a atheist household.

Originally posted by okinrus
Maybe it would be best for the biological parents to decide. Most christians would want their children adopted into christian family. Likewise some atheists would want their children adopted into a atheist household.

If the biological parents want a say in how their child is raised then they shouldn't put them up for adoption.

What autonomy does any child have in picking his or her parrents?

Actually it does. The whole system is set up to where the child has a father and a mother. Male and female. Not female and female. Not male and male. So really gays have no right to have children. If it is their choice to be gay then they shouldn't have kids because they are incapable of having kids (And dont throw that shit at me about how some female/male couples can't have kids, you know what I mean).


If the biological parents want a say in how their child is raised then they shouldn't put them up for adoption.

In which case? In the case where the woman gets raped, or the woman is a crack head, or the parents are young, or the parents can't afford to keep the child, etc. I think that the biological parents have every right to say what happens to their child. It is their child.

what about single parents?

they cant have kids either, oh yea they already HAD kids

so dont give me that crap

gay couples are just as loving as "normal" couples

Yeah ok but lets face it, the kids are going to have a tough time at school.
And parenting isn't about the enjoyment of the parents. Its about raising a happy well balanced human being. Gay parents, no matter how loving they are will raise one angry person. Not angry at them but the rest of the world.
You mustn't remember school very well if you think a kid with gay parents will make it through un-brutally-scathed.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Actually it does. The whole system is set up to where the child has a father and a mother. Male and female. Not female and female. Not male and male.

Yes but this isn't due to any choice of the child, so I don't see how it's relevant to the point you are trying to make.



Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
So really gays have no right to have children. If it is their choice to be gay then they shouldn't have kids because they are incapable of having kids (And dont throw that shit at me about how some female/male couples can't have kids, you know what I mean).

Well to begin with, it's not really anyon's choice to be gay, not any more than it's someones choice to be straight, you either are or you arent, live with it and play the hand you've been dealt. Second, why does the inability to biologicaly produce a child nullify a couples right to adopt a child? If breeders are having so damned many children that they have to throw some of them away why can't a loving homosexual couple salvage a few and give them some sort of stable loving environment to grow up in?

Also, how does this argument of yours not applie to couples who can not give birth? A couple with a sterile man or barren woman, or both are just as physicaly incapable of producing a child as a homosexual couple, what's the difference?


Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
In which case? In the case where the woman gets raped, or the woman is a crack head, or the parents are young, or the parents can't afford to keep the child, etc. I think that the biological parents have every right to say what happens to their child. It is their child.

Yes you are right, parents have every right to do with their children as they will. They even have the right to give up their children and their claim to them to the state or any other adoption center, and after that no, they don't have a say in what happens. Sorry, it's kind of sad knowing that parents and children are sometimes separated, but it happens, life moves on, some kids get adopted and actually live pretty nice healthy lives.

The whole system is set up to where the child has a father and a mother. Male and female. Not female and female. Not male and male. So really gays have no right to have children. If it is their choice to be gay then they shouldn't have kids because they are incapable of having kids
So, although the system is still rather backwards and has missed out on an available option, we are timelessly bound to it? Things can change.

In my value system, you have no right denying people with other sexual preferences the possibility of raising children.


Yeah ok but lets face it, the kids are going to have a tough time at school
How sad that may be, i fear you are right. However, this goes for any kid with any sub-normality. E.g. what about children who have red hair or speech problems... surely they are going to have their share of bullies pushing them around. Nonetheless, it does not imply that they would have miserable lives. Being one of a different hairstyle myself, i should know. My personal believe is that having loving parents weighs far more than a potential verbal trashing from retarded kids in high school.

Yes, children can and will be cruel for even the simplest trivialities, should we as a society cater to that pettiness, or should we instead ignore it and try to educate children to be more tolerant when we can?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Yeah ok but lets face it, the kids are going to have a tough time at school.
And parenting isn't about the enjoyment of the parents. Its about raising a happy well balanced human being. Gay parents, no matter how loving they are will raise one angry person. Not angry at them but the rest of the world.
You mustn't remember school very well if you think a kid with gay parents will make it through un-brutally-scathed.


Yes, this was my point on is it ok to have childern be adopted by gay parents. Gay parents are just as loving but is the world not ignorant enough to see that???.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
I think that the biological parents have every right to say what happens to their child. It is their child.

However, once they surrender their parental authority over to the new parents, their say should end permanently.


Originally posted by mouse

In my value system, you have no right denying people with other sexual preferences the possibility of raising children.


No, he isn't. Nature is. A homosexual relationship cannot conceivably produce progeny. Therefore, they really NEVER HAD a right to raise children.


Originally posted by Mystech
A couple with a sterile man or barren woman, or both are just as physicaly incapable of producing a child as a homosexual couple, what's the difference?


I'm afraid that the difference is tremendous. The sterile man or barren woman, if not for their respective disability, would have been able to bear children if engaged in a heterosexual relationship. Their arrangement is perfect, the only flaw is a anatomic disadvantage, which is totally physical and can be observed by modern medicine.
Homosexuality, however, cannot be observed in physical traits. It can only be displayed through behaviorial traits.
This implies that it is not an anatomic or genetic defect, but a psychological one. Seeing this, given homosexual, who is not barren or sterile, could produce children, if he were engaged in the "perfect arrangement," but HE OR SHE CHOOSES NOT TO DO SO.

Redoubtable:

This implies that it is not an anatomic or genetic defect, but a psychological one. Seeing this, given homosexual, who is not barren or sterile, could produce children, if he were engaged in the "perfect arrangement," but HE OR SHE CHOOSES NOT TO DO SO.

To be fair, psychological 'defects' could be argued to be physically based.

But ultimately, yes. How can homosexuals be argued to have a 'right' to adopt children? I don't recall any section of the US Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' to children.

Now from a utilitarian standpoint, it's probably best to allow homosexuals to adopt, but this does not mean that homosexuals have a 'right' to adopt.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
I'm afraid that the difference is tremendous. The sterile man or barren woman, if not for their respective disability, would have been able to bear children if engaged in a heterosexual relationship. Their arrangement is perfect, the only flaw is a anatomic disadvantage, which is totally physical and can be observed by modern medicine.


Would you contest, then, that the reason homosexuals don't have a right to adopt a child is due to some spiritual or moral reason?


Originally posted by Xev
But ultimately, yes. How can homosexuals be argued to have a 'right' to adopt children? I don't recall any section of the US Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' to children.

Ahh, yes, but at what point does anyone have a right to stop them? Better even still, at what point does it become rational to deny it?

Redoubtable,


No, he isn't. Nature is. A homosexual relationship cannot conceivably produce progeny. Therefore, they really NEVER HAD a right to raise children.
I see the restriction of nature as irrelevant. Much of our efforts is directed to overcome nature's boundaries, it seems to be what we humans have specialized in.


Homosexuality, however, cannot be observed in physical traits. It can only be displayed through behaviorial traits.
This implies that it is not an anatomic or genetic defect, but a psychological one. Seeing this, given homosexual, who is not barren or sterile, could produce children, if he were engaged in the "perfect arrangement," but HE OR SHE CHOOSES NOT TO DO SO.
I think it has been stated before that homosexuality is not a conscious choice. You are or you are not. Despite the fact that one may not be sterile, it triggers a similar result due to a similar cause - obstacles in procreation, due to circumstances beyond your own control.

Xev,

But ultimately, yes. How can homosexuals be argued to have a 'right' to adopt children? I don't recall any section of the US Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' to children.
Granted, but homosexuals do have a right to be treated without discrimination. If heterosexual couples can apply for adoption, would it not be against the constitution to deny homosexual couples the same possibility?

Is the general consenus is to ban abortion and give the children to gays?



Granted, but homosexuals do have a right to be treated without discrimination. If heterosexual couples can apply for adoption, would it not be against the constitution to deny homosexual couples the same possibility?

Not if the home can be considered unsuitable.



I think it has been stated before that homosexuality is not a conscious choice. You are or you are not. Despite the fact that one may not be sterile, it triggers a similar result due to a similar cause - obstacles in procreation, due to circumstances beyond your own control.

There have been no genetic proof of this. However it appears that sexual persuasion is developed so early that it beyond their control.

Okinrus,

Not if the home can be considered unsuitable.
This is indeed another criterium. When applying for adoption, you would have to meet some requirements. The question is whether heterosexuality can be one of those requirements without violating the right of homosexuals to be treated equally.

Would it be incorrect to base judgement on statistics. Like are homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles? Anyways the insurance agency is allowed to "discriminate" on income, education, and age.

Anyways the insurance agency is allowed to "discriminate" on income, education, and age.
Yes, some requirements should be met as e.g. financial stability when adopting a child. This is discrimination as well, by definition. However, the reasoning behind this is of a different kind and not prohibited by (e.g. dutch, i wouldn't know about u.s.) law. A child will cost you money, therefore you should be able to secure funds for it. A child does not necessarily need two parents of different sexes, though.

A homosexual relationship cannot conceivably produce progeny. Therefore, they really NEVER HAD a right to raise children.

May I borrow your logic for a second?

A child was born without a leg. Therefore, he has no right to walk.

A child is born deaf. Therefore, he has no right to communicate with anyone.

Blah Blah Blah Blah

So it would seem that the ability to conceive is the only thing in detirmining what makes a good parent?

Abusive parents have every right to raise children because they can concieve, and yet an infertil couple can't be because nature clearly doesn't want them two.

Aren't I a Smart 1?

"Don't you see, they'd altered what rabbits do naturally because they thought they could do better? And if they altered their ways, so can we if we like."

-Blackburry, Watership Down by Richard Adams, 144.

Surprisingly there are a lot of pro-homosexual arguments that one can draw from Watership Down, desipite it's being a kids book about rabbits going on an adventure. . . it's English, what do you expect?

Driving, like adoption, is a privilege, not a right. We allow people to drive based on demonstration of relevant responsibility and abilities. Such is the same for adoption. The question about homosexuals adopting needs to be discussed in those terms. Is there a trait inherent to homosexuality which would inhibit sufficient ability and responsibility to raise a child? Is there something about being homosexual which immediately makes you incapable of raising healthy children?

Note that I didn't ask whether it would be more difficult under such circumstances, but whether it was possible to do so. So far, I have seen no evidence on this thread that homosexuals are inherently incapable, therefore there is no reason to conclude that it is a valid criteria.

Originally posted by Munchmausen
Note that I didn't ask whether it would be more difficult under such circumstances, but whether it was possible to do so. So far, I have seen no evidence on this thread that homosexuals are inherently incapable, therefore there is no reason to conclude that it is a valid criteria.

Very well put. The question is: what is the qualitative difference that makes homosexuals less able to be good parents than heterosexuals? It's a missing factor in the argument, and I for one can't find it.

Besides, the best way to learn If there are any serious problems is to wait for them to happen. The knowledge and understanding we'd gain from such mistakes would be worth it.

I think a child needs a male and a female role model. If it is a same sex marriage there is only one. They don't see what the other sex/gender should behave like and such. I think the child would be confused socially. Then again he can't be much worst then the rest of humanity.

Maybe you could let it only happen at a small amount now and study if they turn out diffrently. Then again there won't be any non-bias studies probably.

If the only role models the children are exposed to are their parents, they're being overly sheltered. They're apparently not allowed to interact with extended family, family friends, teachers, or community leaders.

Originally posted by Thaug
I think a child needs a male and a female role model.

Bleh, gender roles are arbitrary social constructs, anyway, and who’s to say that a homosexual couple won't have one member displaying traditionally male gender traits (not physical sexual traits, I mean behavioral traits), and the other displaying traditionally female traits, or perhaps some sort of mix on both parts.

Anyway, either way I don't see that that's really such a huge problem, or really even problematic at all.

its all about dominance and submission so what happens in a house with a submisive guy and a dominate female?

Well if thats the way society is you can complain all you want but it won't change just for you. Gender roles do exist and you sorta have to learn them.

Also I thought gay people didn't have a male role and a female role it was just 2 gay guys.

Originally posted by Thaug
Well if thats the way society is you can complain all you want but it won't change just for you. Gender roles do exist and you sorta have to learn them.

No one NEEDs to learn gender roles. They're easily observed in pop culture, and awareness of them is really the extent to which one NEEDS to be prepared for them. Dose anyone need to have them ingraned into their own persona and be trapped by their limitations? I don't think so, they're really not that usefull.


Originally posted by Thaug
Also I thought gay people didn't have a male role and a female role it was just 2 gay guys.

Do all straight people have cookie cutter relationships? of course not, their relationships are as different as the people involved in them. Homosexual relationships are the same way. In some cases one will be more submissive, or fit the traditional female gender role, and the other the male role, and others this won't be true. We can hardly paint such a generalization as to say ALL relationships involving any minority group will involve certain factors, or display certain traits.

I think it would be bad to have kids learn gender roles threw pop culture. Pop culture is disturbing: Britney spears, Micheal Jackson bleeh :o

Whos the one that asks the other person for a date? Its the guys, if they don't know this they probably won't have much of chance. Who are the one that have to entice the question? The girls, if they learn diffrently they could have a bit of a problem later on.

I suspect that on average a heterosexual relationship are more of the same then the average gay one.

Yeah you can break thest gender roles all day but its so much easier to just go with the flow.

Ofcourse if its a big family it wouldn't matter because there would be some straight couples but alas there arent many of those left. I guess also if the kid turned out to be gay then he would have an easier time becuase he has learned how a gay couple interacts.

thaug, are you implying that kids learn how to romance people of the oppocite gender from the way thier parents interact with each other? oh man what kind of household did you grow up in? My parents bairly speak to eachother let alone try to attract eachothers romantic attention.

I grew up where my mom and dad loved each other. You mean you never saw any love inbetween your father and mother at all?

Thaug:
I second what SpyMoose said - if I learned how a couple interacts by watching my parents, I'd be totally fucked.

Or not fucked, as the case may be.

There's something really creepy in the idea of learning "romance" from your parents.


Gender roles do exist and you sorta have to learn them.

Why? I change my own oil, can barely cook, would rather read a book than make myself pretty, can ask a man out if I want him, and I'm perfectly happy.
Sure, the average man wouldn't want me for more than a five minute fuck, but I don't happen to want the average man anyways.
I'm not a slave to my culture and I wouldn't raise my child to be one either.

Ok then I guess then. I still say it should be studied somehow.

A larger percentage of Americans are gay than Muslim. And if you held a popularity contest right now, gays and Muslims would probably be tied for last place. And it's politically correct for everybody, not just schoolkids, to make fun of them. Does that mean that Muslims should not be allowed to adopt either?

How about deaf people? What a handicap it must be for a hearing child to grow up with parents who can't help him develop his oral skills. We'd better not let deaf people adopt any children except deaf ones.

How about midgets? They can't possibly control a child once he gets bigger than they are. And his schoolmates will surely make fun of them. No adoptions for midgets.

Albinos. Everybody makes fun of them. They'll never be able to go watch their kids play in a daylight sporting event. Cross them off the list.

Mimes! America hates mimes. Sure they can talk, but their "lifestyle" of choosing not to is way off the end of the normal curve. No adoptive children for mimes.

How about fat people? Bad role models, poor health prospects, everybody makes fun of them. No kids for fat people.

Shall I go on?

I have a better idea. What if we could make it as difficult for people to have children naturally as it is to adopt? Every kid must have stable parents who don't abuse drugs or get violent, his own private bedroom, a front and back yard, a middle class income, a government bureaucrat checking his progress.

Now THAT would solve the population problem!

[i] gays and Muslims would probably be tied for last place. And it's politically correct for everybody, not just schoolkids, to make fun of them. Does that mean that Muslims should not be allowed to adopt either?
[/B]

im in favor of gay aoption and i agreed with some of your post, but that statement i quoted there is missing something there. That being that muslums have kids all the time so folks wouldnt mind letting them get more through adoption. Some folks might see the biological inability of homosexual couples to have children as an indication that they are not naturaly intended to raise them... hmm although barren females or sterile males will adopt wont they?

never mind i agree with your post.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
Some folks might see the biological inability of homosexual couples to have children as an indication that they are not naturally intended to raise them.Your devil's advocacy raises a good point. I would counter by saying that "natural intention" does not automatically translate into "ability," or at least into "inclination." Just look at all the heterosexual couples who are perfectly wretched parents!

Quick, a poll here. How many of you people have/had heterosexual parents who did an absolutely crappy job on you? I'll start -- ME ME ME!
Never mind, I agree with your post. Same here. The new kinder gentler Sciforums. :)

I give up. How do I insert one of those "smilies" listed in the "Message Icon" row into my text?

Originally posted by Mystech
Very well put. The question is: what is the qualitative difference that makes homosexuals less able to be good parents than heterosexuals? It's a missing factor in the argument, and I for one can't find it.

There just might not be one. Besides biases there isn't any pertienent factor really that is really crucial that favors one group over the other.